Berger v. Auto. Media, LLC
| Decision Date | 12 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-11180 |
| Parties | LAURA M. BERGER, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMOTIVE MEDIA, LLC d/b/a i.M. BRANDED, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 30)
This case involves Plaintiff Laura Berger's claims of alleged Family Medical Leave Act violations and state law disability discrimination against her former employer, Defendant Automotive Media, LLC d/b/a i.M. Branded. Plaintiff was employed as a Project Manager by Defendant for approximately 16 months. She took a three-week FMLA leave due to the stress of the job. During that time, her supervisor allegedly received complaints about the accounts handled by Plaintiff, and when Plaintiff returned from leave, she was placed on a 60-day Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). Plaintiff's employment was terminated prior to the conclusion of the PIP's 60-day period. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant perceived her as disabled because she had taken FMLA leave and that both the PIP and her termination were a result of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FMLA.
Now before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment, in which it argues that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and should be dismissed as a matter of law. The motion is fully briefed and the Court held a telephonic hearing on June 9, 2020. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion.
Defendant i.M. Branded is a Michigan-based company that creates and produces graphic displays and commercial furniture and millwork for automotive clients. It was founded by its Chief Executive Officer and President Jim Whitehead, who became the sole owner after buying out his partner, Penske Automotive Group, in December of 2016. (ECF No. 30-4, Jim Whitehead Deposition Tr. at pp. 10, 12, 14, PgID 477-78.)
Plaintiff was hired at Defendant i.M. Branded in August 2016 as a Senior Project Manager, and she became a Director of Client Services in October 2016 when the department was reorganized. (ECF No. 30-3, Laura Berger Deposition Tr.at pp. 54, 66-67, PgID 396, 399; ECF No. 30-6, Craig Seppey Deposition Tr. at pp. 64-66, PgID 555-56.) At that time, Robin Ellis became Plaintiff's first direct report. (Berger Dep. at p. 67, PgID 399.)
In January 2017, Lindsey Pustulka was hired at Defendant, also as a Director of Client Services. (ECF No. 30-12, Lindsay Pustulka Deposition Tr. at p. 10, PgID 622.) By March of 2017, Plaintiff had three Project Managers reporting to her, Ellis, Eric Frontiera, and Lisa LaFramboise. (Berger Dep. at p. 71, PgID 400; ECF No. 30-5, 4/17/17 Organizational Chart, PgID 537.)
Mercedes-Benz AMG ("AMG") became a client of Defendant in early 2017, and Plaintiff was assigned that account. (Pustulka Dep. at pp. 55-56, PgID 633.) AMG had previously contracted with another vendor, a competitor of Defendant's, but the account was granted to Defendant when the other vendor's "final product was not up to [AMG's] expectations." (Whitehead Dep. at p. 105, PgID 500; id. at p. 106, PgID 501 (agreeing that i.M. Branded was "brought on to fix a problem that another competitor had caused").) AMG was also working with a third-party management company named JLL, that was responsible for engaging and signing up dealerships for AMG. (Berger Dep. at p. 126, PgID 414; Whitehead Dep. at pp. 108-09, PgID 501-02.)
On or about April 11, 2017, Ellis sent an email to Craig Seppey, the Human Resources Manager, stating "[p]er your request the following are items that I feel are important to address with regards to the performance of Laura Berger." (ECF No. 30-7, 4/11/2017 Ellis email to Seppey, PgID 607-08.) Ellis complained that Plaintiff was unproductive as a manager and unable to lead the team, in large part due to Plaintiff's inability to fully understand the Tradesoft software they were using. (Id.) She did not consider Plaintiff to be a "working" manager because she lacked the knowledge to "completely take a job from beginning to end," and complained that Plaintiff "does not fully 'Follow things Through.'" (Id.)
Around that same time, Kristie Shepard, a peer of Plaintiff's, raised concerns to Whitehead regarding some things she observed with respect to Plaintiff's "engagement with [her] group," suggesting that Whitehead "keep an eye on" these issues. (Whitehead Dep. at p. 79, PgID 494.)
On April 21, 2017, Whitehead and Seppey met with Plaintiff to discuss her role as a manager and the roles of those on her team. (Whitehead Dep. at pp. 82-83, 88-90, PgID 495, 496-97; Seppey Dep. at pp. 82-89, PgID 560-61; Berger Dep. at pp. 92-94, PgID 405-06; ECF No. 30-8, Seppey Notes, PgID 610.) They discussed the information that was brought to their attention by Ellis. (Seppey Notes, PgID610.) Whitehead emphasized to Plaintiff the importance of understanding how to fully use the Tradesoft software, which "is a key tool to the success of [her] department[.]" (Id.) Whitehead further testified that Frank Stack, who ran the TradeSoft training sessions at Defendant, later also complained to him that Plaintiff is "not coming to these meetings, she is not learning the system, and everyone else is[.]" (Whitehead Dep. at p. 82, PgID 495.) Whitehead told Plaintiff that she needed to be more supportive of her team and that he needed to see a big improvement. (Id. at p. 92, PgID 497.) He also told her (Id. at p. 82, PgID 495.) Whitehead asked Pustulka to assist in supporting Ellis to relieve some of the tension in group. (Whitehead Dep. at pp. 91, 95, PgID 497-98.)
Plaintiff, however, testified that Whitehead only reported to her that it was "[j]ust Robin [Ellis] complaining" and that he "take[s] 95 percent of what she says as sour grapes." (Berger Dep. at pp. 93-94, PgID 405-06.) Whitehead also asked Plaintiff to "show [Ellis] that you can use [Tradesoft] to the satisfaction that she's looking for" and "[g]et your skills a little brushed up." (Id. at p. 94, PgID 406.) She testified that she believed she was "able to execute Tradesoft to the satisfaction of [her] job" and that (Id. at p. 95, PgID 406.)
In June, July and August of 2017, Plaintiff informed Whitehead and others on her team in a series of emails regarding the status of the AMG account and challenges she was facing, including challenges with JLL, the vendor on the project. (ECF Nos. 32-6 to 32-9, Plaintiff's emails, PgID 1231-40.)
On Monday, August 28, 2017, Whitehead and Seppey met with Plaintiff, at her request, to discuss concerns she was expressing regarding her workload. (Berger Dep. at pp. 99-101, PgID 407.) Plaintiff said she requested the meeting because her team was "already slammed" and she felt that she "needed [additional] resources to effectively handle the amount of work that was coming down the pike." (Id. at p. 101, PgID 407.) According to Seppey's notes from the meeting, Plaintiff stated that she needed "resources for more manpower," and that "she does not want more people but feels she needs additional staff." (ECF 30-9, Seppey's 8/28/17 Notes, PgID 612.) According to Plaintiff, Whitehead told her, "Just give me a day and I'll get back to you." (Berger Dep. at p. 105, PgID 408.)
On Friday, September 1, 2017, Whitehead announced that, effective immediately, Lindsay Pustulka would be "assum[ing] the role of Executive Director of Program Management" and that Plaintiff, along with two others, would be reporting directly to her. (ECF No. 30-11, 9/1/2017 Memorandum, PgID 617.)Plaintiff stated that she thought this was a good solution and she was pleased with the change. (Berger Dep. at pp. 106-07, PgID 409.) Plaintiff was looking for some work-life balance for her team and felt that the change would help. (Id. at pp. 108, 111, PgID 409-10.)
Pustulka testified that, from her perspective, the organizational change was also designed to create unity and consistency to "get everybody all on the same playing field." (Pustulka Dep. at pp. 72-73, PgID 637-38.) Pustulka implemented changes early on, including cross-training everyone across the many different brands, to "create a nice sense of unity among all the project managers." (Id. at pp. 83-84, PgID 640.) She asked each individual Director what they needed from her in her new position, and she recalled Plaintiff asking for "additional support for AMG." (Id. at pp. 93-94, PgID 643.) In response, Pustulka "divided up the AMG program to spread out the work a little bit more so that it could be managed better." (Id. at pp. 95-96, PgID 643.) She said she "dictated certain things to be off-loaded," and she "took on certain things." (Id. at p. 95, PgID 643.) Frontiera remained the Project Manager assigned to the AMG account, and Pustulka assigned LaFramboise and Ellis to assist. (Id. at pp. 95-96, 158-59, PgID 643, 675.)
During September 2017, Pustulka's main focus was the AMG program because "it was the one that was needing the most attention at that time." (Pustulka Dep. at p. 125, PgID 667.) As she got into the AMG account, Pustulka started to have some concerns about the way it was being managed, testifying:
[T]he feedback from the installer, the feedback from the field measurers that I was now seeing for the first time and hearing, the way the conference calls went, the way the client answered and directed on the conference calls, the way [Frontiera] was responding in the whole scheme of things, the way that stuff was put in ProjectPAK and ShopPAK didn't make sense to me from my standpoint.
(Pustulka Dep. at p. 118, PgID 649.) Pustulka sensed that people were being kept "in the dark," testifying...
To continue reading
Request your trial