Hillins v. Mktg. Architects, Inc.
| Citation | 18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 117,808 F.Supp.2d 1145,161 Lab.Cas. P 35943,113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 338 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil File No. 10–2845 (MJD/LIB). |
| Parties | Sara HILLINS, Plaintiff, v. MARKETING ARCHITECTS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bonnie M. Smith, James H. Kaster, and Megan I. Brennan, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, for Plaintiff.
Dawn C. Van Tassel, Howard B. Tarkow, and Nadege J. Souvenir, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 11]. The Court heard oral argument on July 29, 2011. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment.
II. BACKGROUNDA. Factual Background
Defendant Marketing Architects, Inc. (“MAI”) is a Minnesota company that assists radio and television advertisers in their direct-marketing advertising initiatives.
Plaintiff Sara Hillins has a BA in marketing and an MBA. She was hired by MAI in October 2005 as an Account Manager in Advertiser Services. Her primary responsibility was to manage advertiser client relationships.
In September 2006, Hillins was promoted to Manager and began to manage direct reports. In June 2007, she became the Account Director of Advertiser Services and managed a team of Account Managers and Account Associates. By February 2008, she managed the most account relationships of any employee at MAI.
In late 2008 and early 2009, MAI reconfigured Advertiser Services so that accounts would be allocated to employees by industry group, with the goal that each employee would become a subject-matter expert with respect to her particular industry. In January 2009, Hillins became Practice Lead of Beauty and Cosmetics.
In January 2009, Thomas Shipley, the President of Atlantic Coast, learned that his account team at MAI was changing to be under Hillins' direction. He “hates surprises” and was apprehensive about the change. (Longval Dep. 27–29.)
Atlantic Coast was MAI's largest client and made up most of Hillins' Beauty and Cosmetics group. Defendant claims that, in February or March 2009, Shipley called MAI President Brent Longval and expressed concern that Hillins was not bringing value to the account. Defendant further claims that, in May 2009, Shipley again contacted Longval and also MAI Vice President Meg Borman, and requested that Hillins be removed from its account. But MAI did not inform Hillins about Shipley's complaints.
In February 2009, Hillins also took over the Home Goods and Services practice after a colleague departed and left those duties, and one of the main accounts in that practice, Lumber Liquidators, requested Hillins back on its account. Hillins was the only Director-level employee who was also a Practice Lead. The three other women who headed up the industry groups held the title of Vice President.
In May 2009, MAI CEO, Charles Hengel, who was also Hillins supervisor, told Hillins that he would be nominating her for Vice President.
On Friday, June 5, 2009, Hillins told Hengel that she was pregnant. Hillins made arrangements with Hengel and Talent Services (MAI's human resources department) to take 12 weeks maternity leave and an additional two weeks and two days of vacation.
One or two business days after Hillins disclosed her pregnancy, MAI suddenly informed Hillins that Shipley had requested that he have his account team back, so she would no longer be on the Atlantic Coast account. Also, Hillins would no longer be the Practice Lead of Beauty and Cosmetics because the Atlantic Coast account made up almost the entire Beauty and Cosmetics portfolio. The Atlantic Coast account was transitioned to Borman.
The same week, Hengel offered Hillins the choice to work directly with him in a new department, Revenue Management, or to remain as the Practice Lead for the Home Goods and Services team. Hillins asserts that Hengel and others at MAI steered her to take the Revenue Management position. Hillins decided to accept the Revenue Management job, which was a lateral move and did not affect Hillins' compensation or benefits.
Hillins testified that, after she announced her pregnancy to Hengel, he stopped talking about nominating her for Vice President and, in fact, she was never nominated for Vice President.
Throughout June 2009, she transitioned most of her account responsibilities to other MAI employees and began to work with Hengel to define the newly created Revenue Management department. At that time, she had no direct reports. MAI did recruit for an employee to report to Hillins in that department, but the posting was removed because MAI claimed that it wanted to wait until Hillins was back from leave to fill that role.
Hillins claims that, once she accepted the new position, Hengel stopped communicating with her. MAI isolated her and stopped providing information to her that she needed to do her job, while continuing to provide that information to other employees.
In August 2009, the Revenue Management Department was renamed Marketing Insights, and Hillins began to report to Chief Marketing Officer, Jeffrey Clement. Hillins' duties included gathering information from other areas of the company, analyzing the data, and communicating best practices across company departments, and, eventually, to clients. Clement opined that Hillins' role in Marketing Insights would eventually require regular communication with advertisers.
In the months leading up to Hillins' maternity leave, Clement told Hillins to make arrangements to transfer her responsibilities to Jonathan McClellan and Travis Boisvert, MAI employees in the Loyalty Solutions department. In mid-November, Hillins met with Clement to discuss plans for the Marketing Insights department while she was on maternity leave. Clement stated that McClellan and Clement “were working on some loyalty solutions initiatives and he didn't know what [her] position would look like when [she] came back,” and Hillins inferred that Boisvert and McClellan might be taking over her position permanently. (Hillins Dep. 76.) Hillins expressed concern regarding whether she would have a job when she returned from leave. Clement told her that she did not need to worry about that and that she would have a job when she returned, but he “just d[id]n't know what it will look like” or to whom she would report. ( Id. 9.) Hillins reiterated to him that she was coming back to work and Clement replied that “a lot of women say that they're going to come back and they don't so we need to proceed like you're not coming back.” ( Id. 9–10.) She stated that she was a “career person, [ ] received [her] MBA for a reason, [and][ ] wasn't going to be a stay-at-home mom,” and Clements replied that “he wished that [she would] just spend time at home with [her] son when he was born.” ( Id. 10.) He thought that she “should focus on” “spending time with [her] son.” ( Id. 11.)
Up until her leave, MAI had provided positive feedback for Hillins' position in Marketing Insights. In Clement's 2009 Accomplishments, he stated that Marketing Insights “created a success story for Sara.” The “business was recognizing Sara's role” and there was “good feedback” about it. (Clement Dep. 105–06.) Other MAI employees also expressed positive reactions.
Hillins began her maternity leave on November 25, 2009, when her son was born. She used a combination of accrued paid time off, short-term disability benefits, and unpaid FMLA leave.
While Hillins was on leave, Clement considered merging Marketing Insights with Loyalty Solutions, another department that reported to him. McClellan worked on a proposal for a merged business unit, which McClellan would head, and in which Hillins would work when she returned from leave. Clement told McClellan that MAI had to plan for all contingencies, including Hillins not returning from leave, so McClellan placed an asterisk by her name on the planning documents to reflect this uncertainty. McClellan removed the asterisk in mid-January 2010 because there was no indication that Hillins would not be returning to work. Clement asked McClellan to draft the organization chart that included McClellan as the lead, with Hillins reporting to him. McClellan had fewer degrees and less seniority at MAI than Hillins. Until 2009, he had no management experience at MAI.
On December 11, 2009, Hillins attended the MAI holiday party. Clement gave her a bonus check and congratulated her for doing such a good job that year.
In late January 2010, MAI's executive management team met at a regularly scheduled board meeting. The management team conducted a four-day summit to re-examine the business and find ways to meet MAI's goals for the year. The team discussed MAI's financial performance, examined each business unit, and then decided to make changes to the business due to MAI's financial performance. However, there is no documentation to support participants' testimony regarding the content and purpose of the summit. MAI asserts that its goal was to remain profitable for 2010.
As a result of the summit, MAI eliminated two business units—Marketing Insights (which consisted solely of Hillins) and Yield Advantage—Television. Hillins was terminated, and two of the employees in Yield Advantage—Television were reassigned, while two others were terminated. Two other employees—one from Technology and one from Affiliate Services—were also terminated for performance reasons.
The executive management team claims that they engaged in a cursory discussion of whether Hillins was qualified to assume another existing role at MAI, but decided that she could not transition back to account responsibilities. They assert that they concluded that she was unfit for an account management role because she had been removed from MAI's largest account at the client's request. MAI also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC
...and . . . that the protected criteria . . . was a factor in the adverse employment decision.'" Hillins v. Mktg. Architects, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1152 (D. Minn. 2011) (quoting Groves v. Cost Planning & Mgmt. Int'l, Inc., 372 F.3d 1008, 1009 (8th Cir. 2004)). In the hundreds of pages o......
-
Racz v. Mayo Clinic
... ... Anderson ... v. Liberty Lobby, Inc"., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A ... dispute over a fact is “genuine\xE2" ... See Bainbridge, ... 378 F.3d at 760-61; Hillins v. Mktg. Architects, ... Inc., 808 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1155 (D. Minn ... ...
-
Hanson v. Mental Health Res., Inc., Civil No. 12–540 (MJD/JJK).
...the same analysis to interference and retaliation claims under the MPLA as they do under the FMLA. See Hillins v. Mktg. Architects, Inc., 808 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1156 (D.Minn.2011); Halleck v. MMSI, Inc., No. A11–256, 2011 WL 4531052, at *5–*6 (Minn.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 2011).D. Interference1. Stand......
-
Kersten v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
...was terminated pursuant to a bona fide layoff and recall system. In support, Old Dominion relies on Hillins v. Marketing Architects, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Minn. 2011). This decision is unpersuasive, however, because Hillins involved a retaliation claim and not a claim forfailure to......