Gosney v. PNC Bank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 10 July 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-cv-00044
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
• Parties: SHARON GOSNEY, Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant.

SHARON GOSNEY, Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00044

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

July 10, 2020

Judge Matthew W. McFarland

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

For close to thirty years, Plaintiff Sharon Gosney worked as a teller for PNC Bank, N.A., ("PNC") until it fired her in May 2016. Plaintiff subsequently sued PNC, alleging various claims that PNC had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, O.R.C. § 4112, et seq. PNC has now moved for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims, arguing that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was fired for any reason other than her repeated violations of PNC's check-cashing guidelines and poor work-performance. The Court agrees. For the reasons discussed below, PNC is entitled to summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, PNC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.

FACTS

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.

I. Plaintiff Sharon Gosney

Plaintiff Sharon Gosney was hired by PNC in 1987 to work as a teller, a position she held throughout her career. (Doc. 37.) In 2005, Plaintiff began working full-time at PNC's Symmes Township location. (Doc. 28.)

As a teller, Plaintiff was responsible for, among other things, cashing checks, processing withdrawals, balancing her cash box and ATM, and making deposits. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff was also responsible for "adher[ing] to all policies and procedures [and] demonstrating sound judgment within established limits." Plaintiff agrees that, as a teller, there were established rules and a "framework" she was required to follow and that she had little discretion to venture outside those rules. (Id.)

One such policy is PNC's well-established check-cashing guidelines, which tellers like Plaintiff are required to follow in order to protect customers from fraud. (Id.) The check-cashing guideline creates two important safe-guards relevant to this case. First, PNC employees have set "Standard Authority Limits," which vary based on experience and position. (Doc. 26-12.) Employees may not cash checks or approve withdrawals that are above their authority limit without first obtaining authorization from an employee with a higher authority limit. (Doc. 26-18.) PNC's standard authority limit for tellers is $2,000. (Doc. 26-12.) Second, in order to detect potentially fraudulent cashed checks and deposits, PNC has an established system known as the "Fraud Triangle". (Doc. 26-16.) Per the "Fraud Triangle," PNC directs tellers to look for three potential red flags to determine if a particular transaction is legitimate: (1) where the check was issued, (2) that location's relation to the branch location, and (3)where the customer's ID was issued. When cashing checks specifically, if the "customer was not known by a PNC Bank Employee," the Fraud Triangle directs tellers to obtain two forms of identification—one primary and one secondary. (Id.)

PNC's guidelines explain that "[a] violation of PNC Banks' check-cashing guidelines occurs when a teller does not take the appropriate action when cashing a check (e.g., a teller cashes a check over his or her limit without obtaining approval)." (Doc. 26-13.) And "[i]f, in the course of a rolling 12-month period, a teller has 5 check-cashing guideline violations noted, or policy violations totaling $1,000 or more, the teller is subject to termination." If a violation involves a total transaction of $1,000.00 or more, the teller is subject to "automatic probation and possible termination." Moreover, "[e]ach violation is eligible for disciplinary action whether or not the violation resulted in any loss to PNC Bank." (Id.)

Plaintiff was familiar with and trained on these guidelines and admits that a hard copy was readily accessible in the window of each teller station. (Doc. 26 at 54:13-55:8.) She also acknowledges that the check-cashing guidelines are "very important for every employee to follow," even "more experienced people," and employees who violated the guidelines could be terminated. (Id. at 59:15-60:13.) Prior to 2015, Plaintiff had never received any discipline, write-ups, or negative reviews and had been rated as "meets all" expectations for the five preceding years. (Doc. 36-2.) However, Plaintiff also concedes that "[t]hrough my 27 years at the bank, there were any number of people who would break policy and it would be known by a manager and they wouldn't be fired. (Doc. 26 at 192:9-12.)

Things changed, however, in late 2014. Plaintiff requested and was granted FMLA medical leave from November 2014 to January 2015 in order to have surgery to alleviate pain in her hands attributed to her arthritis. (Doc. 36-2.) Plaintiff admits that PNC properly afforded her FMLA leave at that time and that, after returning to work in January 2015, she never submitted another request for FMLA leave. (Doc. 36-1.)

Around the same time that Plaintiff went on leave, Lonnie Beck ("Ms. Beck") became the new branch manager of PNC's Symmes Township location. (Doc. 36-2.) It is undisputed that, upon returning to work in early 2015, Plaintiff engaged in a pattern of violations for which she was repeatedly placed on probation, warned that "immediate and sustained improvement is required," and failure to do so could result in her termination. (Doc. 26-24; Doc. 26-20; Doc. 26-25.) Yet after each probation and warning, Plaintiff continued to violate those same policies. PNC argues that these repeated violations of PNC guidelines were the cause of her termination. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff, however, argues that Ms. Beck set her up for failure and was targeting her because of her age and disability. (Doc. 37.)

II. PNC's Undisputed Facts

PNC's version of events—all of which is undisputed—is straight-forward. First, Plaintiff was placed on probation in May 2015 for several "buy/sell" errors which Plaintiff admits occurred. (Doc. 26 at 125:24-126:6.) Plaintiff received a corrective action, dated May 21, 2015, which stated "Sharon must show immediate and sustained improvement in adhering to PNC branch procedures...Failure to do so may result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment." (Doc. 26-24.)

Less than two months later, Plaintiff received a second corrective action for failing to have a red flag conversation per the "Fraud Triangle" and for obtaining only one form of identification. (Doc. 41 at ¶ 10.) Again, she was placed on probation, this time per the recommendation of Employee Relations Specialist Fabiola Johnson. (Doc. 26-30.) Plaintiff's second corrective action also stated that "[i]mmediate and sustained improvement is required. Failure to meet the expectations outlined [ ] above may result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment." (Doc. 26-20.) Moreover, Ms. Johnson told Ms. Beck directly that "you must say to Sharon that she will be terminated if she does not show immediate and sustainable improvement." (Doc. 26-30.) Plaintiff has accepted responsibility for the incident and admits that there were things she could have done better. (Doc. 26 at 122:21-123:6.)

However, Plaintiff continued to violate PNC's guidelines. On February 23, 2016 Plaintiff completed two withdrawals without approval, one for $3,850.00 and another for $4,000.00. (Doc. 41.) On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff completed a transfer in the amount of $400,000.00 without approval. And on March 7, 2016, Plaintiff cashed a check in the amount of $5,641.30 without approval.¹ On March 9, 2016, PNC placed Plaintiff on her third probation in less than a year. (Doc. 26-25.) Plaintiff received a third corrective action that stated, "you have not demonstrated the level of commitment to your job necessary to meet our expectations... Immediate and sustained improvement isrequired. Failure to meet the expectations outlined [ ] above may result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment." (Doc. 26-25.)

While still on probation, Plaintiff admits that she processed an additional seven transactions in violation of PNC's guidelines and procedures. (Doc. 41 at ¶ 13.) These violations are listed below:

• On March 11, 2016, she cashed a check in the amount of $2,500.00.

• On March 17, 2016, she cashed a check in the amount of $3,762.00.

• On March 21, 2016, she cashed a check in the amount of $5,000.00.

• On March 22, 2016, she cashed a check in the amount of $2,200.00.

• On March 24, 2016, she cashed a check in the amount of $4,461.75.

• On March 29, 2016,² she cashed a check in the amount of $9,325.00.

• On April 8, 2016, she cashed a check in the amount of $3,308.74.

Plaintiff does not dispute that she engaged in these transactions nor does she dispute that the transactions involved checks that were beyond her authority limit. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Ms. Johnson investigated these infractions and, after consulting with Ms. Beck, they mutually agreed that Plaintiff should be terminated. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff was fired.

III. Plaintiff's Version of Events

Plaintiff, however, testified that she felt her "job was threatened from the moment it was announced Ms. Beck would become the Symmes Township manager." (Doc. 26-27.) In Plaintiff's opinion, Ms. Beck targeted her because of her age, disability, or for seeking FMLA leave, and "went out of her way to fire [Plaintiff] and replace herwith one of the numerous 20-year-olds she hired." (Doc. 37.) In support of her argument, Plaintiff relies on the following facts.

During Plaintiff's initial conversation with Ms. Beck, which occurred prior to her returning from FMLA leave, Ms. Beck stated that when she was manager at her previous branch, "she cleared out all the employees." (Doc....