Adesanya v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:13-cv-05564(SDW)(SCM) |
| Parties | AFOLUSO ADESANYA, Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before this Court is Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation's ("Novartis" or "Defendant") Global Motion which seeks: (1) sanctions against pro se Plaintiff Afoluso Adesanya ("Plaintiff"), including dismissal of Plaintiff's claims, or, in the alternative, summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ("Rule 56") on all of Plaintiff's claims; (2) summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 on all of Defendant's counterclaims; (3) sanctions against Plaintiff's former counsel, Ari R. Karpf, Esq. ("Karpf"); (4) sanctions against Plaintiff's husband, Adenekan Hezekiah Adesanya ("Mr. Adesanya"); and (5) sanctions against Mr. Adesanya's former counsel, Jerald G. Abrams, Esq. ("Abrams"). Also before this Court is Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims.1 This Court has jurisdiction overthis action pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This motion is decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.
For the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims; DISMISSES AS MOOT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims; GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts One, Three, Four, Five and Eight of Defendant's counterclaims; GRANTS Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Seven of Defendant's counterclaims only; DISMISSES AS MOOT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts Two and Six of Defendant's Counterclaims; GRANTS Defendant's motion for sanctions against Mr. Adesanya; and DENIES Defendant's motions for sanctions against Karpf and Abrams.2
In March, 2010, Novartis hired Plaintiff as a Brand Safety Leader in its Oncology Business Unit. (Dkt. No. 209-4 ¶¶ 1, 18.)3 At that time, Defendant was unaware that Plaintiff misrepresented her employment history during the application process. (Id. ¶¶ 8-14.) Plaintiff inflated prior salaries, created phony supervisors, and concealed that she had been involuntarily terminated from a prior position. (Id. ¶ 14.) Novartis relied upon those representations in offering Plaintiff a job and in calculating her compensation package. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Both Defendant's Employee Agreement ("Employee Agreement") and its Conflict of Interest Policy ("Conflicts Policy") precluded Plaintiff from holding outside employment during her tenure with Novartis that would interfere with her obligations to the company. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3.) Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to "devote [her] best efforts and full business loyalty to [her] employment with Novartis" and not to hold "other employment or engage in any other business which may adversely affect [her] ability to perform [her] job responsibilities at Novartis." (Id. ¶ 2.) The Conflicts Policy prohibits employees from: 1) holding a "second job with or provid[ing] any services to a competitor of" Novartis; 2) owning directly or indirectly "any interest in any Company which competes, or does business, with" Novartis; and 3) "engag[ing] in any outside employment or other activity which encroaches on the time or attention that should be devoted to [Novartis's] affairs, otherwise detracts from your ability to perform your responsibilities" or deprives Novartis of "your full loyalty." (Id. ¶ 3.) Bonuses were available to Plaintiff pursuant to Defendant's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP") subject to Plaintiff's "adherence to and compliance with" Novartis's rules and policies. (Id. ¶ 6-7.)
Plaintiff was in violation of these policies from the very start of her employment. Plaintiff did not disclose to Novartis that, at the time of her hire and continuing through her tenure with Novartis, she and her husband jointly owned Global Drug Safety & Surveillance, Inc. a/k/a LaRon Pharma, Inc. ("LaRon"), a sub-S corporation that collaborates with "other pharmaceutical companies to develop and market their products."4 (Id. ¶ 10, 13.) Plaintiff owned 50% of LaRon, a "specialty pharmaceutical company" engaged in licensing, developing and marketing prescription drugs for four therapeutic groups, including oncology. (Id.)
Once employed by Novartis, Plaintiff also sought and entered into at least two outside consulting positions in the pharmaceutical industry. In August 2011, Plaintiff accepted a position as a drug safety consultant with Biomedical Consulting International, Inc. ("Biomedical") to provide "scientific research & development services." (Id. ¶¶ 61, 55-58.) Through Biomedical, Plaintiff also provided drug safety services to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals ("Auxilium") and through Auxilium, to direct competitors of Novartis. (Id. ¶¶ 62-68, 70-71.) Auxilium required an average weekly commitment of ten hours from Plaintiff, although at times, Plaintiff billed over 100 hours a month to that company. (Id. ¶¶ 62, 71.) Between 2011 and 2012, Plaintiff received $59,189.00 from Biomedical/Auxilium. (Id. ¶ 77.) From January 2012 through February 2013, using the alias "Ron Nuga, MD," Plaintiff also provided drug safety services to Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc. ("Astellas"). (Id. ¶¶ 83-87.) Plaintiff worked approximately 40 hours a week for Astellas, traveled to its Illinois headquarters on at least five occasions, and earned approximately $500,000.00 for her services.5 (Id. ¶¶ 84-87.) Plaintiff did not disclose her outside activities or income to Novartis. (Id. ¶ 62.)
Plaintiff's employment was also predicated on her relocation from her home in Pennsylvania to a location closer to the Novartis offices in Florham Park, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 18.) Despite receiving over $26,000 in relocation funds, Plaintiff remained in, and worked almost exclusively from, her home in Pennsylvania, in contravention of Defendant's flex-time policy which allowed employees in her department to work from home one to two days a week. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 34.)6 Plaintiff's performance evaluations noted that her limited time in the office was negatively affecting her team. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23, 40, 43.)
On April 10, 2012, Plaintiff's Human Resources Business Partner, Megan Burley ("Burley"), instructed Plaintiff that she would be required to come into the office more frequently, and provided Plaintiff with a plan to increase the number of days she worked in the office, so that by December 2012, she would work from home only one day a week. (Id. ¶ 26.) At that time, despite certifying that she was not disabled when she was hired, Plaintiff told Burley she had medical problems that prevented her from driving to New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 25-26.) On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Accommodation to work from home four days per week due to conditions including: "(a) low back pain, (b) neck pain, (c) severe dry eyes, and (d) left hand pain post-surgery." (Id. ¶ 27.) At this same time, Plaintiff was billing hundreds of hours to her other consulting jobs. (Id. ¶¶ 32.) Unaware of her external employment, Burley and Plaintiff's Manager, Annick Krebs ("Krebs") reviewed Plaintiff's Request for Accommodation and on September 5, 2012, agreed to allow Plaintiff to work from home two days per week, and offered to provide Plaintiff with additional relocation assistance in order to reduce her commute. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34, 36.) Although Plaintiff agreed to these terms, she continued to work from home7 and Plaintiff was warned that her absences were unacceptable on March 13, 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34, 36, 41.) Plaintiff was subsequently terminated effective September 2013.8 (Id. ¶ 36, 43.) The reason given for her termination was "performance based, predominately driven about not coming into the office three days a week, which impacted her interactions and collaboration with her close functional team members." (Id. ¶ 44.) During her employment with Novartis, Plaintiff earned $1,205,720 in cashcompensation (including $210,403 in bonuses under the AIP) and $530,147 in non-monetary compensation, including insurance and retirement benefits. (Id. ¶ 45.)
On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court asserting state and federal discrimination and retaliation claims.9 (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 6, 2013, Defendant filed its Answer and Counterclaims, alleging a variety of fraud and breach of contract claims. (Dkt. No. 7.)10 On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims. (Dkt. No. 20.) On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff was granted permission to amend her Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 47, 55.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts discrimination and failure to accommodate (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), interference and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (Count III), discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Count IV). (Dkt. No. 57.)
On May 27, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, alleging fraud on Plaintiff's application and résumé (Count I), fraud with regard to the Relocation Agreement (Count II), breach of the Relocation Agreement (Count III), breach of the AIP (Count IV), breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count V), unjust enrichment (Count VI), misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information (Count VII), and breach of the duty of loyalty and the Conflicts Policy (Count VIII). (Dkt. No. 60.).
Discovery, which was at all times contentious and marked by delay, began...
To continue reading
Request your trial