Aday v. Westfield Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 September 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-cv-405
• Parties: Steven ADAY, Plaintiff, v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

486 F.Supp.3d 1153

Steven ADAY, Plaintiff,

v.WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-405

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Cincinnati.

Filed September 14, 2020

Stephen A. Simon, Tobias, Kraus & Torchia, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Emily Therese Supinger, Strauss Troy Co. LPA, Theresa Lynn Nelson, Stephen E. Schilling, Strauss Troy, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL.

MATTHEW W. McFARLAND, JUDGE

This case is before the Court on the parties’ motions for summary judgment (Docs. 58, 59), Defendants Ohio Farmers Insurance Company's and Westfield Insurance Company's motions to seal (Docs. 63, 70), and the respective responsive memoranda (Docs. 66, 69; 67, 71; 72, 73). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Steven Aday's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 58) is GRANTED ; Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59) is GRANTED ; and Defendants’ two motions to seal (Docs. 63 & 70) are both GRANTED .

FACTS

In 2005, Aday was hired to work as a claims specialist for Westfield, a subsidiary of Ohio Farmers. In this role, Aday specialized in handling construction defect claims. In 2010, he was promoted to the position of auto unit leader, where he managed a team of claim representatives. In 2016, Aday transferred to a new role as a casualty litigation claims specialist, where he handled a "wide variety" of claims regarding "premises liability, construction defect, transportation & cargo, copyright infringement, advertising injury, employment practices liability, employee benefits liability, premises & operations, products – completed operations, as well as motor vehicle accidents." (Doc. 67.) Throughout his twelve-year tenure with the company, Aday resided and worked in Cincinnati, Ohio.

As Defendants admit from the outset, Aday "was a good employee. He was well liked and could have continued working for Ohio Farmers long into the future." (Doc. 59.) However, in April 2017, Aday advised Defendants that he would be moving to Seattle, Washington because his domestic partner had accepted an executive-level position there. Regardless, Aday made clear that he wanted to continue his employment with the Defendants and, preferably, remain in the same position and work remotely from Seattle. Aday's immediate supervisor, Betsy Jones, did not believe that such an arrangement was possible. Defendants’ business model disfavored unnecessary travel by plane. And while Aday handled some claims in different states,¹ his position was regional and dealt with claims within the territory of southern Ohio and Kentucky. Nevertheless, Jones informed Aday that she would discuss it with her two higher-level supervisors. Both, however, confirmed that Aday's position was strategically placed in Cincinnati and that he had to be physically located in Cincinnati to perform his essential job functions. Ultimately, management informed Aday that, while he was welcome to continue his role as litigation claims specialist for as long as he desired, he could not do so while working remotely from Seattle. (Doc. 67-1 at ¶ 18.)

Accordingly, Aday began looking and applying for other positions within the company that he could do remotely.² Jones actively helped in this endeavor.

In July 2017, Sheila Lilly, the Casualty Injury General Liability Leader, posted an announcement that the company was looking for candidates to fill two vacancies for unit leader in the Casualty Claims department ("Unit Leader" position). The position involved leading a team of employees in handling a wide variety of general liability claims. Aday believed the position was a perfect match for his skillset and experience. He had handled the same types of claims as a litigation claims specialist and had the necessary leadership experience from serving as a unit leader in the Auto division. Perhaps more enticing, the job posting stated that while one of the positions would service the Midwest and east, the other one "will be in the Western states."³ (Doc. 41-7.)

Prior to applying, Aday contacted Lilly to see if the job was an option given his plans to relocate to Seattle. Lilly responded that Aday, "should apply and sell us on how you can make this work ... I am trying to be creative and think outside the box. At the same time, leadership is talking about how we need leaders in an office more often." (Doc. 41-9 at p. 361.) Knowing the concerns about his anticipated move to Seattle, Aday came to the interview fully prepared, in Lilly's words, he came "loaded for bear." (Doc. 49 at 99:16-18.) Aday prepared a travel calendar with flight information and presented a map reflecting the airfare from Seattle to the respective offices of his anticipated direct reports. At the end of the interview, Lilly and another interviewer-manager, Jason Bidinger, told Aday he had "hit it out of the park." (Id. at 125:4-7.) Bidinger even declared that, among the other candidates for the job, Aday was the "one to beat." (Id. at 111:1-17.) Lilly agreed. (Id. )

There was significant competition for the two positions as Lilly interviewed 14 applicants. After the interviews, Jodie Hopkins, the National Casualty Claims Leader, told Lilly that she had a hard decision to make. (Doc. 48 at 59:2-19.) In Hopkins's mind, all 14 applicants were highly qualified and more than ten of them were internal candidates. To decide who would be hired, Lilly, along with the others who had assisted in the interviews, conducted a "draft room" where they discussed the pros and cons of each applicant. (Doc. 59-1.) Through that process, Lilly narrowed the candidates down to the top five. Aday was fourth. Although one of the draft room participants stated that Aday was the "[m]ost plug and play, ready to go" candidate, Lilly testified that none of the participants thought he was in the top two. (Doc. 49 at 89:9-12, 45:17-20.) In her notes, the first thing Lily listed under Aday's cons was "Seattle, WA," with a circle around "WA." (Doc. 49-3.)

Ultimately, Lilly did not select Aday for either of the two positions. The successful candidates were Danielle Somogyi and Curt Zito. Lilly believed that Somogyi was the best candidate. (Doc. 49 at 57:10-22.) She had started at Ohio Farmers in 1994 as a claims specialist, moved into structured settlements in 2002, and eventually became the division leader—an executive level position which she held for 11 years. (Doc. 59-1.) Zito, meanwhile, started with Ohio Farmers in 2015 and, prior to that, had more than 20 years of experience in the insurance industry. Moreover, Lilly was responsible for hiring Zito in 2015, where he had worked as one of her direct reports until she rotated positions. Although Zito lived in Toledo, Ohio, Lilly believed that he had some good ideas about how he would approach the leadership role and had a "more creative plan" than Aday that did not require spending unnecessary time and money on travel. (Id. )

After finding out he had not gotten the position, Aday decided that it was futile to continue looking for a new job within the company. He submitted an irrevocable request for retirement, officially retired, and moved to Seattle.

In June 2018, Aday filed the present lawsuit and, after amending his complaint, alleges three claims against the Defendants for: (1) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. , ("ADEA"); (2) age discrimination in violation of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112 ("ORC 4112"); and (3) retaliation in violation of ORC 4112. The age discrimination claims are two-fold; Aday alleges that Defendants violated the ADEA and ORC 4112 by: (1) failing to hire him as Unit Leader; and (2) failing to retain him in his then-current position.

In answering Aday's amended complaint, Defendants assert counterclaims against Aday for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1831, et seq. , and Ohio's Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("OUTSA"), O.R.C. Chapter 1333.61, et seq. , ("trade secret counterclaim"), and (2) breach of duty of good faith and loyalty ("breach of loyalty"). Defendants allege that, through discovery, Aday produced several email messages he had sent from his internal Westfield Group email address to either his personal Gmail account or to a third party's Gmail account.⁴ (Doc. 22 at ¶ 32.) As a result, Defendants ran a full audit of Aday's Westfield email, which revealed several transmissions that Defendants allege violate both internal company policy and Ohio law. In total, Defendants allege Aday sent 34 unauthorized emails that contained confidential information or trade secrets. (Id. )

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims and Aday has filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Defendants’ counterclaims. These motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. Defendants have also filed two motions for leave to file under seal. In the first motion, Defendants seek to file under seal four of the emails Aday sent on the basis that they are protected "trade secrets." In the second motion, Defendants seek to file under seal notes taken from Zito's interview. The first motion is fully briefed and the second is unopposed. Both are thus ripe for review.

LAW

Courts must grant summary judgment if the record "reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Laster v. City of Kalamazoo , 746 F.3d 714, 726 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ). Once the movant has met its initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact remains, the nonmoving party must present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To do so, they must present "significant probative evidence ......