Jones v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.

Decision Date29 September 2011
Docket NumberNo. 2:08–CV–1047.,2:08–CV–1047.
Citation86 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 922,823 F.Supp.2d 699
PartiesChyrianne H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Judith E. Galeano, Mowery and Youell, Chelsea Lee Long, James Scott Mowery, Jr., Justin Anthony Morocco, Mowery, Youell & Galeano, Ltd., Dublin, OH, for Plaintiff.

David A. Whitcomb, Kristopher J. Armstrong, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GEORGE C. SMITH, District Judge.

Plaintiff Chyrianne H. Jones (Plaintiff or “Ms. Jones”) brings this employment action against Defendants St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. (St. Jude) and Michael Moore. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered various adverse employment actions and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02, including disparate treatment and hostile work environment discrimination based on race and sex, retaliation for engaging in protected conduct, and wage discrimination.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61). Plaintiff has responded and this matter is now ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Chyrianne H. Jones is an African–American female who was employed with Defendant St. Jude from July 22, 2005 until her termination on December 17, 2009. Defendant St. Jude is a Minnesota corporation that sells medical devices to both hospitals and physicians. St. Jude's medical products include cardiac rhythm management (“CRM”) devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators, internal cardiac devices (“ICDs”), and biventricular devices (“BiVs”).

Plaintiff was hired on July 22, 2005, as a CRM sales representative in Jacksonville, Florida, and she worked there for approximately two years. (Jones Dep. at 49). Plaintiff's sales territory in Jacksonville consisted of one high volume physician. During that two-year period, Plaintiff received acclaim for her outstanding sales performance. St. Jude designated her as a member of its Circle of Excellence for her outstanding sales and gave her its Rookie of the Year Award in recognition of her sales achievements. (Valle Dep. at 104; Pl.'s Memo. in Opp. Ex. 1). Jones' Regional Sales Manager (“RSM”) in Florida considered her an excellent sales representative, rating her “4” or, “exceeds expectations,” on her 2006 performance appraisal, her last appraisal immediately before her transfer to Ohio. (Suppes Dep. at 86–87; Pl.'s Memo. in Opp. Ex. 2).

A. Establishment of St. Jude's Sales Force in Columbus

Prior to February 2007, St. Jude did not employ a direct CRM sales force in its Columbus, Ohio region. Instead, it contracted with an independent entity, Ohio Pacesetter Association (“Pacesetter”), to sell and service St. Jude's CRM products in Columbus. (Moore Dep. at 48). Effective February 2007, St. Jude bought out its contract with Pacesetter with the intent to replace the independent contractor's sales force with its own direct CRM sales force. At the time St. Jude terminated the Pacesetter contract, it had not yet hired any direct sales representatives for the region. Consequently, all of St. Jude's sales activities in the region ceased. Louis Major, III, (“Major”) a black, African–American male, and the newly designated regional sales manager in Columbus, became solely responsible for servicing all of St. Jude's hospital and individual physician accounts until sales representatives were hired. Major reported directly to Michael Moore, a white male, who was the Area Vice President of Sales for the Columbus region. As an RSM, Major was tasked with identifying and recruiting direct sales representatives for Columbus. (Moore Dep. at 72). Major presented his business plan for the region to Moore; the plan identified the sales representatives, including Plaintiff, whom he intended to hire and the sales territories each would be assigned. (Major Dep. at 52–53).

Despite Major's plan, Moore hired the first three sales representatives for Columbus: Tim Rooney (“Rooney”); Jim McQuarrie (“McQuarrie”); and, Doug Woyton (“Woyton”)-all white males. (Major Dep. at 113, 115–18, 127–30). None of these men were included in Major's business plan for the region. Moore also directly negotiated their employment contracts, agreeing to very substantial guarantees 1, commission rates, and very favorable sales territories for each. (Moore Dep. at 80; Major Dep. at 126, 128–32). Typically, a sales representative's guarantee is equivalent to the representative's prior year's earnings as reflected by his W–2s. (Ellen Dep. at 68; Major Dep. at 113; Suppes Dep. at 39).

Major then hired two additional sales representatives, Paul Giacobbe (“Giacobbe”) and Plaintiff Jones. (Major Dep. at 137). Major had recommended to Moore that Jones' guarantee be set in an amount equivalent to her W–2s from the preceding year, $320,000. (Major Dep. at 148). After Moore interviewed Jones, Moore reduced the guarantee offered to Jones from $320,000 down to $210,000. (Major Dep. at 149). According to Major, he never heard of a sales representative, whether as intra-company transfer or a new hire, being paid a guarantee less than her prior year's W–2 earnings. (Major Dep. at 149). Plaintiff's contract stated: “For the first year of this Agreement (the ‘Total Guarantee Period”), Employee [Plaintiff] will receive the greater of the actual compensation (i.e., salary plus commissions) to which Employee would be entitled, or the sum of $210,000.00, whichever is greater, prorated on a monthly basis.” (Jones Dep. Ex. 4). This equates to a monthly minimum compensation guarantee of $17,500.00. Plaintiff, however, outperformed her contract, so she was not subject to a wage ceiling or salary cap-meaning no limit existed as to what she could have earned.

Unlike most Sales Representatives, Plaintiff's guarantee was paid with no negative repercussions, meaning that if she failed to sell enough implant devices to “justify” her compensation guarantee (i.e., to earn commissions in excess of the guarantee), she was not required to pay back the extra money received at the end of the guarantee period. (Jones Dep. at 72, Ex. 4, pp. 10–11) ([I]f at the end of the Total Guarantee Period Employee's earned commissions are short of the guarantee (i.e., a negative balance), SJMSC will forgive the negative balance.”).

Plaintiff was assigned a primary territory consisting of four electrophysiologists (“EPs”) at Riverside (Territory A in her contract) and a number of smaller, low voltage accounts in outlying areas as well as an additional EP, Dr. Noble (Territory B). (Major Dep. at 147, 152–54, 165; Pl.'s Memo. in Opp. Ex. 11).

Giacobbe was recruited from a competitor and consequently, he was subject to a one-year non-compete, during which he could not sell in certain Columbus territories, including Riverside—even though that account was assigned to him in his contract. (Suppes Dep. at 99; Moore Dep. at 105; Major Dep. at 134–35). Major set Giacobbe's guarantee based on Giacobbe's prior year's W–2 statements, as was consistent with St. Jude's practice. (Major Dep. at 135). Giacobbe's guarantee was $10,000 more than the guarantee Moore dictated for Jones. (Major Dep. at 135, 147).

B. Plaintiff's Riverside Account

Plaintiff's primary sales territory consisted of four EPs and Riverside hospital, where she spent the majority of her time, both selling and servicing the account. Jones immediately began building relationships with her physicians, repairing customer perception of St. Jude, and was observed to have good rapport with the customers. As a result, St. Jude's sales began “trending upward” at Riverside, as well as in Plaintiff's other accounts. (Major Dep. at 154, 181, 185–86). At that time, Jones was St. Jude's primary sales representative in Riverside, as Giacobbe was prohibited from selling any devices in the account until May 31, 2008, when his non-compete expired.

From July 2007 through January 2008, Plaintiff was the only St. Jude sales representative actively in Riverside selling and servicing the account, yet Giacobbe received sales credit for all the sales in Riverside during this period. ( See Major Dep. at 67–68, 135; Suppes Dep. at 100–01; Jones Dep. at 190, 205). Plaintiff worked diligently on her accounts and experienced success in Riverside. (Major Dep. at 156). It was Major's opinion that she remain in Riverside, [b]ecause in the short time that she had been at Riverside, our business was growing. She was able to get implants out of doctors that we were not getting before she started working there.” (Major Dep. at 156).

Despite Plaintiff's success at Riverside in the fall of 2007, Moore directed Major to set up a meeting with Plaintiff. At the meeting, Moore proposed that Plaintiff release her Riverside territory in exchange for override commissions at OSU. ( See Jones Dep. at 89; Moore Dep. at 99–100; Major Dep. at 56–57, 65). Override commissions are commissions received on device sales where the sales representative does not actively work the account. (Major Dep. at 66; Jones Dep. at 90). Although commissions from OSU may have increased Plaintiff's income in the short-term, Defendants' proposal, if accepted, would have an overall and long-term effect of limiting both Plaintiff's income and her career with the company. (Jones Dep. at 89–90; Major Dep. at 66–67). Plaintiff therefore declined the offer.

After Plaintiff left the meeting, Moore instructed Major to [w]ait a couple months and take the account.” (Major Dep. at 67; Pl.'s Memo. in Opp. Ex. 4, at B). Indeed, a couple months later, in late November or early December 2007, Moore directed Major to remove Riverside from Plaintiff's territory “based on performance.” (Major Dep. at 225). Major responded, [T]here's no negative performance to justify that.”...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Campbell v. Norfolk S. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 22 Junio 2012
    ...of protected rights is relevant to causation.” Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir.2000). In Jones v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 823 F.Supp.2d 699 (S.D.Ohio 2011), plaintiff did not establish a causal connection when she failed to show that she was treated less favorably than ......
  • Brown v. Duke Energy Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 31 Marzo 2019
    ...This Court has held that a low performance evaluation, on its own, is not an adverse employment action. Jones v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 823 F. Supp. 2d 699, 727 (S.D.Ohio 2011), aff'd, 504 F. App'x 473 (6th Cir. 2012). However, the Sixth Circuit has found that where a counseling and perf......
  • Parker v. Zale Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 29 Marzo 2012
    ...circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it.’ ” Jones v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 823 F.Supp.2d 699, 728 (S.D.Ohio 2011) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir.1992)). Plaintiff must show that the proposed comparators......
  • Mohamad v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 28 Septiembre 2012
    ...employees for making or attempting to make secret recordings in violation of a company policy. See, e.g., Jonesv. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 823 F. Supp. 2d 699, 743-44 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate pretext where she admitted making tape recordings wit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT