Groshon v. Trans Union, LLC, 12 C 7591
| Decision Date | 21 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12 C 7591,12 C 7591 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | ROBERT E. GROSHON, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant. |
Hon. Virginia M. Kendall
Plaintiff Robert E. Groshon sued Defendant Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union") for age discrimination (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) related to the termination of his employment with Trans Union pursuant to the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Trans Union moves for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, Trans Union's motion is denied as to Count I and granted as to Count II.
Trans Union is a credit information and information management services company with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 2.) On June 1, 1995, Trans Union hired Groshon as a full-time Desktop Service Technician. (Id.) At the time, Groshon was 41 years old. (Id.) Throughout his employment with Trans Union, Groshon held the same position performing IT support duties. (Id. at p. 4.) Groshon's general responsibilities includedaddressing and resolving associates' computer problems and assisting with computer upgrades or changes, known as "deployments." (Id. at p. 5.) Periodically, Groshon was assigned projects outside of these general responsibilities. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 1.) When he was hired, and periodically throughout his employment with Trans Union, Groshon acknowledged receipt of the Trans Union company handbook, which contained its Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. (Dkt. No. 23 at pp. 2-3.) Groshon understood that he could report any complaints to Trans Union's Human Resources Department or utilize the 24-hour toll-free employee Hot Line available to all Trans Union Associates. (Id. at pp. 3-4.)
In March 1996 and March 1997, Groshon's supervisors recommended that he receive merit pay increases. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 2.) Between late 1999 and 2002, Groshon received numerous "MVP" awards, based on co-worker nominations, under a program that ended in 2002. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 2; Dkt. No. 28 at pp. 3-15; Dkt. No. 32 at pp. 1-7.) Also during the 1990s, Groshon received numerous "ThanQ" notes from various co-workers, a program that was also discontinued. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 3; Dkt No. 32 at pp. 9-16.)
Throughout his employment, Groshon received annual performance evaluations. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 5.) In Trans Union's annual evaluations, a rating between 2.00 and 2.98 is defined as "Meets job requirements;" a rating between 2.99 and 3.00 is "Exceeds job requirements." (E.g., Dkt. No. 25 at p. 27.) Groshon was consistently ranked in the category of "meeting expectations." (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 5.) Groshon interpreted this rating to mean he was doing his job correctly. (Id. at p. 6.) In 2001, Jason Centanni, Groshon's supervisor, praised Groshon'sperformance and gave him a rating of 2.30 out of 3.00. (Dkt. No. 25 at p. 27.) Groshon received a 2.14 in his 2003 evaluation, and was asked therein to complete two computer certifications. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 6.) Groshon did not complete this training because he believed he could handle his work without those certifications and learned a lot on his own. (Id.)
In Groshon's 2007 annual evaluation, his supervisor at the time, Frank Vasquez, rated him at 1.91, in the "not meeting job requirements" category. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at p. 30.) Groshon's overall rating was based, in large part, on rating of 1.00 he received for failing to obtain Microsoft MCDST Certification, which constituted 15% of his overall numerical rating. (Id.) Groshon was rated 2.00 or 3.00 in every other category. (Id.) Groshon disagreed with his overall rating. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 8.) In April and June of 2007, Vasquez also issued Groshon two written reprimands—a formal Manager Discussion and a First Written Notice of Performance, both of which Groshon also disagreed with. (Id. at p. 9.) Groshon believed Vasquez was "out to get him" because Vasquez was supposedly jealous and upset that co-workers bypassed Vasquez and went straight to Groshon for help. (Id.)
In 2008, in a modified annual evaluation form completed by Orhan Duyar that did not include Microsoft MCDST Certification, Groshon's overall rating was 2.02. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at pp. 39-42.) In the "Service" portion of the evaluation, Duyar states, "[Groshon] is always willing to help others, and the reason he exceeds in this category is because he really like[s] to help others, not because his job requires [him] to do so, he always has [a] positive attitude and it doesn't matter how much work is waiting for him early in the morning; Once, [Groshon] was paged at 7 AM, he was at 525, in five minutes Bob was already at 555 helping the customer." (Id. at pp. 39-40.) In "Administration," Duyar wrote, (Id. at p. 40.)
Laurie Rabattini became Groshon's supervisor in September 2009. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 10.) At the end of 2009, Rabattini completed a year-end review of Groshon's work. (Id.) The evaluation was generally positive, noting areas for improvement and giving Groshon specific deadlines to complete certain tasks. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) Groshon agreed with this performance evaluation and signed it in February 2010. (Id. at p. 10.)
In April 2010, Rabattini counseled Groshon on his handling of open tickets and issued him a Performance Improvement Plan. (Id. at p. 7; Dkt. No. 41 at p. 6.) "Open tickets" are requests from Trans Union employees for assistance with computer problems. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 6.) She had previously met with her entire staff and informed them that Trans Union was raising the "bar" regarding the handling service request tickets, improving closing ticket times, and completing requests. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 11.) During April 2010, Groshon and one other technician were primarily responsible for responding to employee service tickets, which necessarily caused the number of Groshon's open tickets to increase. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 6.) Rabattini discussed Groshon's handling of tickets with him again in July 2010. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 12.) He disagreed with her assessment of his performance and contacted Shelegh Hyzny from Trans Union Human Resources in Chicago regarding this disagreement in July 2010. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 24.) Rabattini also began meeting with Groshon and sometimes Groshon's team leader, Baron Rush, on a regular basis to review Groshon's performance. (Id. at p. 6.) Groshoncontinued to meet with Rabattini throughout August, September, October, and November of 2010. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 12.)
In October 2010, Rabattini assigned Groshon a standardization project to upgrade and track 215 Trans Union employees' new laptop computers. (Dkt. No. 41 at pp. 20-21.) Rabattini requested that the project be completed in Microsoft Project. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 12.) Groshon received help from another employee to create the project template in Microsoft Project. (Id.) Groshon then discovered that Microsoft Project was calculating certain percentages incorrectly, and subsequently received Rabattini's approval to complete the first draft in Microsoft Excel. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 21.) With the correct figures, Groshon later created a version of the project in Microsoft Project. (Dkt. No. 23 at pp. 15-16.) The 215 employees all timely received their new laptops. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 21.) Shortly thereafter, Groshon received a performance evaluation for 2010 in which Rabattini rated Groshon as not meeting expectations. (Dkt. Nos. 23 at p. 17; 19-1 at pp. 69-74.) He also received a Performance Improvement Plan for 2010. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 17.) On March 17, 2011, Groshon received a Formal Written Warning from Rabattini. (Dkt. Nos. 23 at p. 17; 19-1 at pp. 57-58.) Groshon was surprised to receive this warning because he believed he was following Rabattini's instructions. (Dkt. No. 41 at p. 22.)
Based on his meetings with Rabattini, Groshon began printing out Unicenter data sheets on August 31, 2010. (Id. at p. 8.) Unicenter is the central database that Trans Union's computer technicians used to track and log their work. (Dkt. No. 25 at ¶ 6.) These data sheets contained the number of open tickets that Groshon and his colleagues had on the specific date he printed them. (Dkt. Nos. 41 at p. 8; 25 at ¶¶ 6-8.) Groshon printed out two types of Unicenter data sheets, both containing roughly the same information but in slightly different levels of detail: the"Request List" and the "Request Detail." (Dkt. Nos. 41 at p. 8; 25 at ¶¶ 6-8.) The printouts show that, on numerous occasions in 2010 and 2011, younger employees had more open tickets and tickets open for longer periods of time than Groshon. (Dkt. No. 41 at pp. 8-20.) Nevertheless, these younger employees generally received more positive feedback on their performance reviews than Groshon, who was criticized for the speed in which he closed tickets. (Id.)
On August 16, 2011, Rabattini and Groshon met to discuss his mid-year performance review. (Dkt. No. 23 at p. 21.) Also during the summer of 2011, Rabattini sent Groshon a text message stating that she planned to proceed with issuing a second and final warning related to his performance. (Id.) After receiving the text message, and sometime during July of 2011, Groshon contacted Trans Union's Human Resources Director, Pat Bradley. (Dkt. No. 23 at...
To continue reading
Request your trial