Fernandez v. Hotwire Commc'ns
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-60115-RKA |
| Parties | BIANCA FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. HOTWIRE COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Our Plaintiff, Bianca Fernandez, was an account manager at Hotwire Communications, where she “was responsible for the overall good health of the properties” she managed. Seven months into her tenure, though, Hotwire fired her as part of a reduction-in-force the company undertook at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hotwire says it fired Fernandez because she exhibited “numerous performance deficiencies”-among these: “consistently ha[ving] difficulty following up on action items and completing requested tasks in a timely manner” “ignorance” of, and failure to perform, her basic “job duties”; and a propensity for allowing company equipment under her care to deteriorate. Because of these deficiencies, one of Fernandez's clients asked that she be removed from handling its account, and another threatened to sue Hotwire. Fernandez-unhappy with her termination-now claims that she was actually fired because of her age and sex. But no reasonable jury could find that Hotwire dismissed her for a discriminatory reason. After careful review, therefore, we GRANT Hotwire's Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) [ECF No. 57].[1] The Facts[2]
On May 4, 2015, Fernandez started as a Residential Sales Specialist with Hotwire Communications, an internet service provider. See Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“JSOF”) [ECF No. 56] ¶ 1. “In or around September 2019,” Fernandez was promoted to “Account Manager.” Id. ¶ 2. As an account manager, Fernandez “was responsible for the overall good health of the properties to which she was assigned[.]” Defendant's Statement of Facts (“Def.'s SOF”) [ECF No. 55] ¶ 3; see also Plaintiff's Response Statement of Material Facts (“Pl.'s SOF”) [ECF No. 59] ¶ 3 (“Undisputed.”). “Once [Fernandez] became an Account Manager, [she] was presented with, and signed, an Account Manager Accountability Checklist.” Decl. of Bianca Fernandez (“Fernandez Decl.”) [ECF No. 58-1] ¶ 4. Fernandez's immediate supervisor, Shannon Stephan, “met with [her] to go over the essential job functions of the position by reviewing the Account Manager Accountability Checklist.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 6; see also Pl.'s SOF ¶ 6 ().[3] The Checklist included the following expectations:
Account Management Accountability Checklist (the “Checklist”) [ECF No. 55-1] at 261.
Fernandez “acknowledged [these] essential job functions,” Fernandez Decl. ¶ 5, but now claims that “[she] had no idea what any of the responsibilities listed entailed, but expected to be taught through training,” id. ¶ 4. The thing is: Fernandez was “provided with training that included shadowing other Account Managers for approximately one month before [she] was assigned to any properties of her own.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 8; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 8 ().[4] Stephan also “repeatedly advised [Fernandez] . . . that she has an ‘open door' policy and to come to her with any questions at any time.” JSOF ¶ 9. Trying to stave off summary judgment, however, Fernandez now claims that Stephan didn't teach her about “walkouts,” Fernandez Decl. ¶ 7-a critical component in any survey of a client's property, see Stephan Depo. at 43:7-8 (). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Fernandez-as we must at this stage of the case-we'll accept this as a genuine dispute on the narrow question of whether Stephan trained Fernandez on how a “walkout” should be conducted. As we'll see, though, this dispute isn't material to the central issue in this case-which is whether Hotwire fired Fernandez because she's a woman or because she's over 40. This dispute-though genuine-thus isn't enough to withstand summary judgment.
After about two months on the job, things began to devolve. Stephan testified that Fernandez “would not follow up with the properties,” and that “she also was not giving the mileage that she's supposed to correctly.” Stephan Depo. at 24:24-25:4; see also Def.'s SOF ¶¶ 10, 11; Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 10, 11 (failing to genuinely dispute this fact).[5] “[I]n or around December 2019, Ms. Stephan first began discussing Plaintiff's performance issues with Hotwire's Executive Vice President of the Palm Beach Region, Carl Lender . . . at the time she conducted a total staff performance review.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 12; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 12 ().[6] Major issues at two of Fernandez's assigned properties quickly followed.
At the Club of Indian Lakes (one of Fernandez's assigned locations, see JSOF ¶ 13), Carl Lender testified that the association president “directly contacted him to request that Plaintiff be removed from handling their account,” id. ¶ 14. According to Lender, the club complained because “they weren't happy with [Fernandez] as their account manager and they wanted her removed.” Depo. of Carl Lender (“Lender Depo.”) [ECF No. 55-3] at 39:23-25.[7]
In early 2020, Fernandez also ran into problems at Harbour Oaks-another of her assigned properties. See JSOF ¶ 15. Concerned that Fernandez was “kind of like a red flag,” Lender Depo. at 40:12, Lender checked up on her at Harbour Oaks and “suggested that he and [Fernandez] walk around the [ ] property together to examine the condition of Hotwire's equipment on site,” Def.'s SOF ¶ 16; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 16 ().
During the walk-around, Lender “observed Hotwire equipment in obviously unacceptable condition.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 18; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 18 (undisputed).
The parties agree that Harbour Oaks was poorly maintained. The question is: Whose fault was it? Fernandez admitted that, when Hotwire first assigned her to the property, she “did not do a walk through,” Fernandez Depo. at 160:25, and “she did not look for any issues that may have existed concerning the installation of Hotwire's equipment on the outside of the Harbor Oaks property,” Def.'s SOF ¶ 22; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 22 (); see also Fernandez Depo. at 161:11-162:14 (). This, as we've said, was a clear violation of her job responsibilities as outlined in the Checklist she herself reviewed and signed. See Checklist at 261. Fernandez also doesn't deny the “big issue” she had with Harbour Oaks-viz., that Fernandez Depo. at 143:8-17 (errors in original). But she maintains Id. at 143:11-13. At least sometimes. Earlier in her deposition, Fernandez agreed that her job as account manager was to ensure that “[a]ll the services were being done right, everything looked good, everything was installed right, everything was running perfectly.” Id. at 142:13-16. And, in a later part of her deposition, when she was asked: “So, on Hotwire's end, it is you who is responsible for fixing problems, right?” she answered: “I mean-but, yeah.” Id. at 153:5-7.
Fernandez conceded that Harbour Oaks Id. at 152:8-12. She also admitted that “board members began to call [her] upset, telling [her] they were thinking of suing Hotwire.” Fernandez Decl. ¶ 17. But Fernandez insists that she acquired the poorly maintained property from another account manager, Thania, who was herself “terminated for deficient work performance.” Id. ¶ 14-15. “When it was given to me,” Fernandez testified, “this property ha[d] a lot of problems.”
Fernandez Depo. at 152:18-20. But she didn't do anything “to solve the problems,” id. at 152:21, because they had “nothing to do with [her],” id. at 155:12, and they were “not [her] problem,” id. at 155:17-18. Again, this testimony is directly contradicted by the Checklist she herself agreed to. See Checklist at 261.
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Hotwire underwent “a complete restructuring of the entire company,” Lender Depo. 45:19, and decided to “separate[ ] from employment with 34 out of its 1,102 employees.” Def.'s SOF ¶ 34; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 34 (). Lender was “supposed to get rid of eight of [the] maybe 50, 60 people” he oversaw. Lender Depo. at 45:23- 46:2. So, Lender “basically rank[ed] them.” Id. at 38:21. He “looked at each individual person, their properties their performance and there was somethings [sic] going on specifically with [Fernandez] at that time that weren't going on with the others, so she stuck out.” Id. at 39:2-6 (errors in original). By contrast, Lender had no “complaints” about any “other account manager[.]” Id. at 45:9-11. As Stephan remembered it, she and Lender “had been discussing [Fernandez's] performance since probably December of 2019 when we did our performance review that we do at the end of every year, and then we also had discussed her performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial