Jarnutowski v. Pratt

• Decision Date: 04 May 2015
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3:13–cv–100AVC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: David JARNUTOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. PRATT & WHITNEY, A Division of United Technologies Corp., Defendant.

103 F.Supp.3d 225

David JARNUTOWSKI, Plaintiff,

v.PRATT & WHITNEY, A Division of United Technologies Corp., Defendant.

Civil No. 3:13–cv–100AVC.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed May 4, 2015.

Bruce E. Newman, Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP, Bristol, CT, for Plaintiff.

Albert Zakarian, Eric L. Sussman, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT, Erika D. Cagney, Day Pitney LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

RULING ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALFRED V. COVELLO, District Judge.

This is an action for damages in which the plaintiff, David Jarnutowski, alleges that the defendant, Pratt & Whitney (“Pratt”), unlawfully terminated his employment on the basis of his age. It is brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)¹and common law tenets concerning breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Pratt has filed the within motion for summary judgment on all counts pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The issues presented are: 1) whether Jarnutowski has provided sufficient evidence that his termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, and if so, whether Jarnutowski has provided sufficient evidence to determine that Pratt's nondiscriminatory reason for terminating his employment was pretextual; 2) whether an implied contract existed between Jarnutowski and Pratt; 3) whether Pratt made a clear and definite promise to Jarnutowski, and if so, whether Jarnutowski relied on that promise; and 4) whether the statutory remedies available to Jarnutowski through the ADEA preclude him from bringing a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

For the reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

FACTS

Examination of the complaint, pleadings, local rule 56 statements, the exhibits accompanying the motion for summary judgment, and the responses thereto, disclose the following, undisputed, material facts:

In 1984, Jarnutowski began working for Pratt. Pratt “designs, manufactures, and services commercial and military aircraft engines and other related products.” In 2010, Jarnutowski worked as a customer fleet director (“CFD”)²at International Aero Engines (“IAE”), which was a consortium between Pratt and a number of other entities that “manufactured and sold the V2500 Jet Engine to both domestic and international customers.”³In that position, Jarnutowski managed 1) contracts between IAE and the customer, 2) technical and warranty issues, and 3) sales. He was responsible originally for customers located in “continental Europe, Russia, and the countries that comprised the former Soviet Union.” His primary customers included Lufthansa, German Wings, and Astana.

In 2008, James Masotti, the regional vice president for Europe and leasing at IAE, and Bruce Hall, the senior CFD at IAE, began supervising Jarnutowski. For the year 2008, Masotti rated Jarnutowski as “fully competent,” but listed low ratings in “key competencies of strategic leadership and business innovation.”

In 2009, one of Jarnutowski's responsibilities included developing a strategy on how IAE could grow its business in Russia. This task required Jarnutowski “to determine what was needed to get the airline operating and doing business in the region.” According to Jarnutowski, the political climate in Russia at that time prevented him from creating a strategy. Moreover, Pratt did not allow Jarnutowski to attend two conferences in 2008 and 2009, which hindered his ability to develop a relationship with people in Russia.

Jarnutowski was also in charge of developing a field representative manual. Jarnutowski states that he volunteered for this task, but he did not know of the expectation to complete it by himself in 2009. Although he made progress throughout 2009, Jarnutowski concedes that he did not complete this task until 2010.

In July 2009, Masotti and Hall met with Jarnutowski to discuss the lack of progress made on his projects. They criticized various projects on which he worked and noted their dissatisfaction with certain tasks assigned to him.

According to Hall, in 2009, Masotti and Hall reduced Jarnutowski's workload from a typical CFD. Where most CFDs managed eight to twelve accounts, Masotti and Hall gave Jarnutowski just two in an attempt to lighten his workload and correct his deficiencies.

In February 2010, Jarnutowski received an “unsatisfactory” rating on his performance evaluation tool for the year 2009. The performance evaluation tool allows an employee and his or her supervisors to rate the employee's performance of various “objectives” and “competencies.” The objectives section of the tool utilizes five ratings: 1) above target; 2) target; 3) progressing; 4) below target; and 5) objective no longer applies. The competency section utilizes five different ratings: 1) competency expertly applied; 2) competency fully evident; 3) competency somewhat evident; 4) competency not evident or not adequate; and 5) not applicable/no observation. In the objectives section, Masotti and Hall assessed Jarnutowski as “below target” once, “progressing” in five objectives, and “target” in four objectives. In the competency section, Masotti assessed Jarnutowski as fully competent in four areas, somewhat competent in eight areas, and not competent in two areas. Hall assessed Jarnutowski as fully competent in three areas and somewhat competent in ten areas.

Specifically, the assessment noted that Jarnutowski consistently took a passive approach, did not project “confidence and clarity in data presented,” and did not effectively communicate his thoughts. With respect to business innovation, Masotti noted that Jarnutowski “[c]an loose [sic] sight of big picture and become lost in the weeds.” Hall stated that “[Jarnutowski] needs to venture out of his comfort zone.” Notably, “[a]lthough Hall and Masotti were critical of Plaintiff's overall performance in his role, they nevertheless repeatedly praised Plaintiff for his technical skills.” Masotti provided the following summary of Jarnutowski's performance in 2009:

Dave although pleasant in approach struggled to deliver much of the expected result in 2009.

Despite ongoing discussions with Bruce, Jim and Andy, Dave maintained a passive approach and struggled to remain focused on the task required to sucessfully [sic] complete his key objectives.

Not delivering a successful Russia/CIS customer support plan and a field rep manual was most disappointing. Of equal concern is Dave's reluctance to take the lead when it came to resolving customer issues that fall into his area of responsibility. “Leaves the ball on the field for someone else to take”

After receiving the “unsatisfactory” rating on his performance evaluation tool, Hall and Masotti placed Jarnutowski on an Employee Improvement Plan (“EIP”). This plan “is designed to address an employee's failure to demonstrate an effective level of job performance in their current role and grade ... [which] gives the employee an opportunity to raise their performance to satisfactory levels and avoid the need for additional disciplinary action.”

Specifically, the EIP assigned four distinct tasks to Jarnutowski. First, it required Jarnutowski to create and complete the field manual by April 30, 2010. Second, it required Jarnutowski to negotiate or create an action plan to resolve two issues with Lufthansa Technik (“LHT”).⁴Third, the EIP required Jarnutowski to address a contract issue with German Wings and renegotiate the agreement. Fourth, it required Jarnutowski to create and deliver an executive review presentation on German Wings and LHT.

During the EIP period, Hall met with Jarnutowski for an hour or more once a week. Hall states that these meetings helped him track Jarnutowski's progress and keep Jarnutowski focused, but Jarnutowski claims that Hall used this time to criticize him. Jarnutowski also met with Hall, Masotti, and a human resources representative for a “First Review and Assessment,” a “Second Review and Assessment,” and a “Final Review and Assessment,” in March, April, and June, respectively.

By the end of the EIP period, Jarnutowski had completed two out of the four objectives. Specifically, he completed the field manual and delivered an executive review presentation. Jarnutowski's supervisors indicate that a number of individuals were instrumental in helping Jarnutowski complete these tasks and that Jarnutowski required supervision and coaching. Jarnutowski maintains, however, that he took many proactive approaches to complete the objectives.

As to the remaining two objectives, Jarnutowski states that the tasks could not be completed at that time due to the dependency on third party cooperation. His supervisors contend that Jarnutowski failed to demonstrate any significant progress or plan, but Jarnutowski argues that the lack of cooperation from third parties made the tasks impossible.

The final section of the EIP captioned “Performance Summary and Next Actions” included a box checked for “EIP Unsuccessfully Completed.” This section provided that on July 1, 2010, Pratt would reclassify or demote Jarnutowski to an L5, with no change in pay. Masotti stated that “the competencies required to be a successful L4 were not being demonstrated” and “it might be easier to help him find another position within the company.” Jarnutowski maintains, however, that he operated at the same level during the entirety of his time as an L4 and that his reviews and demotion prevented him from transferring laterally within the company. In reclassifying Jarnutowski as an L5, his supervisors allocated his CFD responsibilities to other employees. This section further outlined a plan for Jarnutowski to stay at the company in a “temporary function” for up to 90 days, which, according to the section, ...