Fullington v. Ill. Tool Works Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-2287-DDC-KGG |
| Parties | DEBRA FULLINGTON, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Debra Fullington alleges that defendant Illinois Tool Works Inc. terminated her employment because of her age and thus violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Before the court is defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (Doc. 44) and its supporting memorandum (Doc. 45). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. 53). And defendant has replied (Doc. 58). For reasons explained below, the court denies defendant's motion.
The following facts either are stipulated in Pretrial Order (Doc 41), uncontroverted, or, where controverted, are stated in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing summary judgment. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
Plaintiff's career at ITW
Plaintiff began working for defendant Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) on February 5, 2001, as a “buyer/planner” Doc. 45-1 at 2 (Fullington Dep. 12:11-16). She was 40 years old when she started working for ITW. Id. During nearly two decades of employment with ITW plaintiff worked as a buyer/planner at ITW's facility in Olathe, Kansas. Doc. 53-3 at 5-16 (Fullington Dep. 55:9-66:16); Doc. 41 at 2 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2. a. 5.).
Plaintiff had two direct supervisors during her tenure at the ITW Olathe, Kansas facility: Robin Gannon and Cedric Burden. Doc. 53-2 at 1 (Gannon Aff. ¶ 5); Doc. 53-1 at 1 (Burden Aff. ¶ 4). Both Mr. Gannon and Mr. Burden observed that plaintiff was a high performing employee in her role as buyer/planner. Doc. 53-2 at 2 (Gannon Aff. ¶ 9); Doc. 53-1 at 1 (Burden Aff. ¶ 7).
On September 28, 2020, Mr. Burden, then ITW's plant manager and plaintiff's direct supervisor, informed her that ITW was eliminating her position due to the company's plans to restructure. Doc. 45-1 at 13. (Fullington Dep. 209:1-24). Plaintiff was 60 years old when ITW terminated her employment. Doc. 41 at 2 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2. a. 1.). Mr. Burden informed plaintiff that ITW was eliminating the buyer/planner position and replacing it with a “Strategic Planning Analyst” position. Doc. 53-1 at 2 (Burden Aff. ¶ 8). Plaintiff's termination package stated that “[d]ue to the pandemic of COVID-19 and our declining business, ITW Fluids North America has made a decision to end jobs.” Doc. 53-28 at 4 (Ex. 28).
As a result of the September 28, 2020 restructure, ITW eliminated the following positions (corresponding age of terminated employee in parentheses)-Process Engineer (age 58), Machine Operator (37), Crater/Packer (64 and 49), Accountant (48), Accounting Specialist (41), Buyer (60), Regional Sales Manager (66, 65, and 59), Industry Segment Leader (63). Doc. 5212 (Ex. 30). ITW created the following new positions and hired new employees for each role- Senior Sales Representative (62), Regional Sales Manager (44), Regional Sales Representative (41), and Strategic Planning Analyst (49).[1] See Doc. 45-7 at 5-6 (Neely 30(b)(6) Dep. 50:551:9); Doc. 45-8 at 2-3 (Pickens 30(b)(6) Dep. 16:25-17:9); Doc. 45-3 at 2 (Pickens Decl. ¶ 3).
ITW eliminated plaintiff's position-buyer/planner-and “upgraded the position” to strategic planning analyst. Doc. 45-5 at 9 (Levine Dep. 26:1-2). ITW then hired David James as a strategic planning analyst. Doc. 45-3 at 2 (Pickens Decl. ¶ 3); Doc. 45-8 at 3 (Pickens 30(b)(6) Dep. 16:25-17:11). Mr. James was born in 1971, making him “50 or 51” years old when hired. Doc. 45-8 at 3 (Pickens 30(b)(6) Dep. 17:12-14).
The average age of the 11 employees terminated in the September 2020 restructure was 55 years old. Doc. 52-12 (Ex. 30). Plaintiff was the only individual of eight employees in the ITW Olathe Operations Leadership Division terminated as a part of the restructure; the average age of that division was approximately 41 years old, and plaintiff, at age 60, was the oldest employee in the division. Doc. 52-12 (Ex. 30). Additionally, ITW terminated the three oldest employees in the ITW Pro Brand Sales Division (63, 65, and 66 years old) as a part of the restructure. Id.
On August 15, 2019, about a year before ITW eliminated plaintiff's position in the restructure, Mr. Gannon, plaintiff's direct supervisor at the time, placed her on a 90-day performance improvement plan (PIP). Doc. 52-6 (Ex. 15). Sean Leonard, then ITW's Vice President and General Manager, directed Mr. Gannon to issue the PIP to plaintiff. Doc. 53-16 at 2 (Pickens Dep. 13:15-25); Doc. 45-4 at 2 (Leonard Dep. 7:15-25).
Olivia Martinez, an engineer in strategic sourcing at ITW, worked closely with plaintiff and was involved in plaintiff's PIP. See Doc. 53-17 at 7, 9 (Martinez Dep. 35:22-25, 51:4-5).
On September 23, 2019, plaintiff met with Ms. Martinez and told her she felt as though she was being singled out because of her age. Id. at 6 (Martinez Dep. 31:3-9). In the meeting, Ms. Martinez asked plaintiff about her age and retirement. Doc. 53-3 at 3 (Fullington Dep. 23:4-19). Plaintiff thought the questions were strange, and she responded that her goal was to work for as long as possible. Doc. 53-18 (Ex. 18).
On October 2, 2019, plaintiff sent ITW chief human resources officer, Katie Lawler, a letter of concern about her PIP and the work environment at ITW. Doc. 52-7 at 1 (Ex. 19). Plaintiff described a “dramatic change” in the work environment, characterizing it as “almost toxic” and “a very unhappy working atmosphere[.]” Id. Plaintiff voiced concerns over “undiscussed objectives” and “being held accountable for actions [she had] no control over on [her] objectives” in the PIP. Id. She requested “re-evaluation” and “specific goals[.]” Id.
Following this complaint, one of ITW's HR employees, Eunice Hawkins, reviewed plaintiff's PIP. Doc. 53-12 at 2 (Hawkins Dep. 18:8-20). Ms. Hawkins found the PIP was unfair to plaintiff because it was “not clear on the metrics” or written in a way that plaintiff could understand what her employer was holding her accountable to accomplish. Id. Ms. Hawkins then sent the PIP to John Keating, ITW's Segment Director, for review. Id. at 2-3 (Hawkins Dep. 18:17-19:4). Mr. Keating called the PIP “poorly worded,” commenting that it was not “clear on the goals/expectations because nowhere does it reference what the current state/baselines are for each areas of improvement.” Doc. 52-8 (Ex. 20). Mr. Keating suggested revisions of the PIP, calling for increased specificity in targets. See Doc. 52-9 (Ex. 21 Original PIP); Doc. 53-22 at 4 (Faz Dep. 37:6-11); Doc. 52-10 (Ex. 23 Revised PIP).
On October 23, 2019, Jesus Faz, plaintiff's supervisor at the time, issued a revised PIP. Doc. 53-22 at 2, 4 (Faz Dep. 8:13-17, 37:6-11); Doc. 52-10 (Ex. 23 Revised PIP). Mr. Faz reported directly to Sean Leonard. Doc. 53-22 at 3 (Faz Dep. 10:8-10). The revised PIP raised “On Time Delivery” goal from 94 to 95% and raised the “PO Accuracy Goal” from 99 to 100%. Doc. 53-24 at 2-4 (Neely Dep. 61:14-23, 78:18-79:25); see also Doc. 52-9 (Ex. 21 Original PIP); Doc. 52-10 (Ex. 23 Revised PIP). After receiving this revised PIP, plaintiff again felt singled out, so she voiced her concerns again. Doc. 53-3 at 18-20 (Fullington Dep. 156:5-14, 162:16-163:10). In the PIP meeting with Ms. Martinez, plaintiff raised concerns that she was “being singled out,” that she “thought [ITW was] trying to get rid of [her]” and she “thought [the PIP] was unfair, and [she] thought it was [her] age.” Id.
Plaintiff eventually cleared the PIP. Doc. 53-17 at 9 (Martinez Dep. 51:9-17). But that was not the end of Ms. Martinez and Mr. Leonard scrutinizing plaintiff's work performance. On February 24, 2020, Ms. Martinez messaged another ITW employee about plaintiff. Doc. 52-11 at 5 (Ex. 25). She asserted that “every single mistake [plaintiff makes] is going to be big now . . . [I'm] not holding anything back” and that when she talked to Mr. Leonard about an issue, “he assume[d] that was [plaintiff's] fault and he was ready to fight[.]” Id.
Other allegations of age discrimination at ITW
In June 2018, ITW management received two anonymous age discrimination complaints. See Doc. 52-2 (Ex. 10); Doc. 52-3 (Ex. 11). Many of the allegations of age discrimination centered around former ITW Vice President and General Manager, Sean Leonard. See Doc. 52-2 (Ex. 10); Doc. 52-3 (Ex. 11); Doc. 53-5 (Foster Aff.); Doc. 45-4 at 2 (Leonard Dep. 7:15-25). The June 6, 2018 anonymous complaint alleged that Mr. Leonard had made “several derogatory comments on the aging employees of ITW[.]” Doc. 52-2 at 3 (Ex. 10). The June 27, 2018 anonymous complaint, made against Sales Director Kevin Thompson, alleged that “Sean Leonard and Kevin Thompson will be firing employees one by one that are 55 Plus with Andrea's help ....” Doc. 52-3 at 1 (Ex. 11).
David Foster, former National Sales Manager at ITW, worked under Mr. Leonard, and complained of “ageism” and a “toxic work environment” under Mr. Leonard's leadership. Doc. 53-5 at 2 (Foster Aff. ¶ 8). Mr. Foster reported that at a national sales meeting in 2017 he had heard Mr. Leonard say “too many gray hair[ed] people are here”[2] and observed what he believed was attempted “purg[ing]” of ITW's older employees through 2016 and 2017 company restructures. Doc. 53-5 at 1 (Foster Aff ¶¶ 4-5). Mr. Leonard previously executed reductions in force (RIFs) in November 2016 and June 2017; between the two RIFs, ITW terminated 22 employees, only one under the age of 40. Doc. 53-6 at 5-6 (Neely 30(b)(6) Dep. 36:19-37:12).
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates...
To continue reading
Request your trial