Guthmann v. Classic Residence Mgmt. Ltd., Case No. 16-CV-02680-LHK
| Decision Date | 14 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-CV-02680-LHK |
| Parties | STACY GUTHMANN, Plaintiff, v. CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiff Stacy Guthmann ("Plaintiff") brings this action against CC-Palo Alto, Inc. D/B/A Vi at Palo Alto ("Vi") and Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership ("Classic Residence Management") (collectively, "Defendants"). Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on certain claims in Plaintiff's complaint. ECF No. 41 ("Mot."). Specifically, Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff's gender discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims. Having considered the submissions and oral arguments of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims.
Defendant Classic Residence Management operates retirement communities across the United States. Guthmann Decl. ¶ 2. In August 2011, Plaintiff began working as a Sales Counselor at one of these retirement communities, Vi at Palo Alto. Ex. C. to Mot. Plaintiff worked at Vi at Palo Alto until she was terminated on May 28, 2015. Guthmann Decl. ¶ 1. As a Sales Counselor, Plaintiff's job duties included sales and marketing of residential units at Vi at Palo Alto.
Plaintiff claims that from the time she was hired through January 2012, Plaintiff "reported to work but did not clock in or out." Opp. at 3; Guthmann Depo. 17:4-20. Thereafter, Plaintiff's supervisor instructed Plaintiff to begin clocking in and out, and Plaintiff began to do so. Id. However, because Plaintiff was a Sales Counselor, Plaintiff was often unexpectedly interrupted at lunchtime by potential buyers seeking to tour residential units. This would require Plaintiff to clock in before beginning the tour. Plaintiff was also required to "punch out at the supposed end of the day in an artificial manner" even if Plaintiff continued to work after the "supposed end of the day." Guthmann Decl. ¶ 6. According to Plaintiff, this system meant that Plaintiff worked off the clock between 5 and 10 times per month "during the busy times of the year, i.e., October through January," and approximately four times per month during the rest of the year. Id.
Plaintiff claims that she made numerous complaints about this system and "constantly suggested that Defendants simply adjust my salary and classification and make me exempt." Id. ¶ 7. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that she discussed this topic once per month for almost four years with her supervisor, Michael Wilson. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff also claims that she discussed this topic with Shari Okumura, the Director of Human Resources, approximately ten times in three and a half years. Id. ¶ 8. Finally, Plaintiff claims that she discussed this issue with the Executive Director of Vi at Palo Alto, Steve Brudnick, five times per year. Id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiff also claims that she complained about other allegedly unfair wage practices. For example, Plaintiff states that Plaintiff received a commission on every sale of a residential unit. However, if the sale was cancelled for some reason, Plaintiff was required to pay back the commission she earned, but Defendants would not return the amount that Plaintiff had paid in taxes on the commission. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff complained about this practice to Wilson in April2013. Plaintiff claims that she also complained to Wilson about another issue regarding what Plaintiff regarded as unfair policies for using Personal Time Off. Id. ¶ 11. Additionally, Plaintiff complained that after Defendants switched to a new time-clock system in May 2014, the new system malfunctioned in ways that made it appear that Plaintiff was "working a lot of overtime" and that Plaintiff was taking longer breaks. Id. ¶ 13; Opp. at 4.
According to Plaintiff, these complaints and the problems with the new time-clock system caused Wilson "to become frustrated and terse with Plaintiff." Opp. at 4. Therefore, Plaintiff contacted Okumura, who arranged a meeting with Plaintiff to discuss the matter. Guthmann Decl. ¶ 15. When Plaintiff met with Okumura on June 2, 2014, Plaintiff states that Okumura discussed ways to improve the relationship between Plaintiff and Wilson. Id. However, Plaintiff also stated that "[w]hen [Plaintiff] pointed out to Ms. Okumura that there were differences between the way that I was compelled to clock in a[nd] out and employees on her Staff, [Okumura] became defensive and angry." Id.
The same day as the meeting with Okumura, June 2, 2014, Plaintiff made a separate request to Wilson. Specifically, Plaintiff "foresaw an upcoming need to work on a Saturday coupled with [a] need for some personal time in an upcoming work week." Opp. at 5. Therefore "Plaintiff requested to not have to take PTO [Personal Time Off] but instead to work on Saturday because she believed her PTO had been unfairly depleted by Defendants' practices." Id. Wilson denied this request. Id.
On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff learned that since June 2, 2014, the Director of Resident Services, Spiller, had been "keeping a log" of Plaintiff's personal calls, lunch breaks, and clock-punching times. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff found this "highly unusual since [Spiller] was not in [Plaintiff's] chain of command," and therefore Plaintiff complained to Okumura. Id. Okumura informed Plaintiff that Spiller had complained to Okumura that Plaintiff was making too many personal calls. Id. Plaintiff states that "[t]o solve the issue, Plaintiff shut her door." Opp. at 5.
Plaintiff continued to complain about wage and hour issues to Wilson and Okumura. Id. Eventually, Plaintiff emailed Defendants' corporate office in Chicago and requested moreinformation on why Plaintiff was not classified as an exempt employee. Ex. B to Opp. Okumura forwarded this email and the corporate office's response to Brudnick. Id.
On August 12, 2014, Plaintiff received a mid-year performance evaluation from Wilson. Ex. A (Wilson Depo., Ex. 5). As part of the evaluation, Wilson wrote the following:
On August 20, 2014, employees in Defendants' Vi community in San Diego filed a class action lawsuit asserting claims related to Defendants' wage and hour practices, including time-clock issues. ECF No. 58-1. Wilson informed Plaintiff about this lawsuit in March 2015.
On May 6, 2015, at Okumura's request, Wilson forwarded Okumura emails from Plaintiff relating to Plaintiff's complaints about wage and hour issues. Ex. A 136:7-15. In mid-May 2015, Plaintiff claims that Wilson informed Plaintiff that because of the Vi San Diego lawsuit, an investigator was coming to Vi Palo Alto to "ask if . . . people who are on the clock had any issues about missed time, about missed breaks." Guthmann Depo. at 144:11-19. Plaintiff states that Wilson told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff "play[ed] ball," Wilson would support Plaintiff's effort to be classified as an exempt employee. Id. at 146:7-9. Plaintiff met with the investigator on May 15, 2015 and told the investigator that Plaintiff "did not have a problem with not receiving . . . breaks." Id. at 148:1-2.
On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with a Vi resident, Mrs. Lawver, and her dog. Plaintiff claims that even before the incident, Mrs. Lawver's dog was "known for attacking other dogs and people" and that Mrs. Lawver herself "was known for her violent, vulgar, racist[,] abusive conduct, which has repeatedly occurred over the years." Opp. at 2-3. Plaintiff has produced evidence regarding particular incidents involving Mrs. Lawver and her dog. Id.
The basic facts of the May 21, 2015 incident are as follows. As Plaintiff sat in her office,she heard a dog barking outside and left to investigate. Guthmann Depo. 95:5-12. Once outside, Plaintiff witnessed Mrs. Lawver's dog barking at another resident's dog. Id. at 96:4-7. Plaintiff took Mrs. Lawver's dog's leash, and Plaintiff and Mrs. Lawver exchanged words. Id. at 97:6-24. Plaintiff then returned to her office. Id. at 97-98. After remaining in her office for a few seconds, Plaintiff again left her office and encountered Mrs. Lawver in the hallway. Plaintiff and Mrs. Lawver then engaged in a second verbal altercation in the hallway. Id. at 102:4-25.
Plaintiff reported this incident by email to Luis Lopez, the manager of the day, the same day it occurred and gave her version of events. Plaintiff stated that she "ran up to take the leash from Mrs. Lawver's arm" and told Mrs. Lawver that her dog needed to leave the community. Ex. K to Guthmann Decl. Plaintiff stated that Mrs. Lawver threatened to sue Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff "told her she could get a lawyer or speak to Steve [Brudnick] about me." Id. Plaintiff then stated that during the second altercation in the hallway, Mrs. Lawver swore at Plaintiff and Plaintiff Id.
Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff was the only person to report this incident to Lopez and that Mrs. Lawver returned to her room and made no effort to lodge a complaint regarding the incident. Lopez Depo. 32:2-11. However, one employee, Joy Flores, informed her supervisor, Spiller, about the incident. Ex. D to Opp. In response, Spiller told Flores that if Mrs. Lawver "tries to get you...
To continue reading
Request your trial