Lauth v. Covance, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-136-WTL-TAB |
| Citation | 155 F.Supp.3d 855 |
| Parties | Steven A. Lauth, Plaintiff, v. Covance, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Benjamin C. Ellis, Kevin W. Betz, Betz & Blevins, Sandra L. Blevins, Betz & Associates, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.
Alan L. McLaughlin, Emily L. Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.
This cause is before the Court on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 41). This motion is fully briefed,1 and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the motion for the reasons forth below.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)
provides that summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the admissible evidence presented by the non-moving party must be believed and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant's favor. Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc. , 476 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir.2007)
; Zerante v. DeLuca , 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir.2009) (). However, “[a] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial.” Hemsworth , 476 F.3d at 490. Summary judgment will not be defeated if the claim or defense poses a factual scenario that is plainly contradicted by the summary judgment record. See
Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (); Burton v. Downey , 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.2015) (). In addition, the Court does not draw inferences that are “supported only by speculation or conjecture.” Argy
r
opoulos v.
City of Alton , 539 F.3d 724, 732 (7th Cir.2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, genuine disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; see also
The facts that follow are viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff Steven Lauth.2 Additional relevant facts are included in the Discussion section below.
In 2006, the Defendant, Covance, Inc.3 hired Lauth at the age of 54 as a second shift production supervisor in its kit production department. The second shift worked from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. From 2006 through mid-year 2012, Lauth reported directly to Donald Snyder, kit production manager, who was 45 years old when Lauth was hired. Snyder transferred out of the kit production department at the end of June 2012. From April 2012 through a point in July 2012, Imelda Marsh, the global director of operations who was then 56 years old, supervised Lauth until Christine Walters, who was 42 years old, completed her transition into Snyder's former role in July 2012.
Throughout Lauth's employment, Aaron Ellsworth also worked in the kit production department, but on the first shift from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He was a systems architect and was responsible for maintaining, growing, and operating the kit production systems software. He attended management team meetings. Lauth believed Ellsworth intimidated and bullied Lauth and other employees, and he complained about Ellsworth's harassment starting in 2006.
Throughout his employment, Lauth never received a negative overall evaluation score. He performed well at the production aspects of his position, but his supervisors noted concerns with his communication style. In Lauth's 2006 year-end performance management review (“PMD”), Lauth received an overall rating of “Meets Expectations.” Snyder stated that “[Lauth]'s hard working, all business approach, was a much needed change for the 2nd shift.” Dkt. No. 43–5 at 94. He also praised Lauth for “help[ing] the entire department add capacity without adding any heads” by “helping [the second shift staff] maximize their output” and for “[his] diligence in getting his staff cross trained as much as possible.” Id. at 95. In the review, Snyder also commented on Lauth's communication with the second shift workforce: Id. He noted that “[Lauth] will need to realize and make any necessary adjustments in his style, in order to match the environment of the 2nd shift work force, without comprimising [sic] his beliefs and standards.” Id. at 97. He also noted that Lauth needed to work on his relationship with the first shift supervisor. Id. at 96.
Lauth again received an overall performance rating of “Meets Expectations” in his 2007 year-end PMD. Snyder stated that “[Lauth]'s shift is able to accomplish their daily deliverables, with few exceptions.” Dkt. No. 43–5 at 89. Snyder also recognized Lauth for his “all business approach to the job [, which] reflects on his staff a strong work ethic mentality” and his “continuous diligence[, which] helps his staff in seeing how they should approach their job every day.” Id. at 86. In the category of “Inspires Others,” however, Lauth received a rating of “Improvement Needed.” Id. Snyder remarked in the review that Id. In the “Confronts Constructively” category, Snyder noted that it was “an issue for [Lauth] at times...to be receptive to listening to his staff's suggestions zand [sic] questions.” Id. at 88. He also indicated that Id. Snyder again noted that Lauth Id.
Lauth's overall rating in his 2008 year-end PMD was once again “Meets Expectations.” Snyder noted that “[Lauth] takes pride in being organized and getting the job done his way.” Dkt. No. 43–5 at 78. He also recognized that Id. at 82. He also commented positively on Lauth's employee management: “[m]oral [sic] no longer seems to be an issue within his shift, regarding [Lauth]'s supervision and communication style,” but still rated Lauth as needing improvement in the “Inspires Others” category. Id. at 79. Snyder noted that he “still sense[d] that there is an issue from time to time with his co-workers.” Id. He reiterated his concerns that Lauth “appears unreceptive to take help and/or suggestions from others” and that Lauth Id. at 81. Snyder again noted that Lauth's unreceptiveness to help and suggestions was “often not received well with his peers” and opined that “[b]ecause of this, to be frank, at times I actually wonder whether or not if [Lauth] is the right fit for our team.” Id. Snyder elaborated on this point in the final comments section of the PMD, stating:
[Lauth] is a loyal, honest and hard worker, who I enjoy having in the department. However, at times, I have concerns of whether [Lauth] is the right fit for the department, as we continue to grow our business. Things are not going to get easier, and very good internal communication and trust between shifts will be mandatory. I'm concerned whether this will ever occur for [Lauth] here. This criticism is more relating to his perceived style, temperament and communication practices. All areas that are an absolute must in being successful with working with everyone in the department. There is no room for lone soldiers....Going forward, I need everyone to be on the same page... from a process knowledge, leadership, and communication standpoint. I am not sure at times if this is occurring with [Lauth]. If this does not change, this may impact his rating for next year, or potentially run the risk of me needing to replace him with someone who works better with the others in the room, across all facets.
In 2009, Lauth received an overall rating of “Meets Expectations.” In 2010, he received an overall rating of “Exceeds Expectations” in his year-end PMD. Snyder summarized Lauth's accomplishments for the year as follows:
[Lauth] has had a very good 2010. His shift's performance in output continue [s] to be an overall asset in leading all shift's [sic]....[Lauth]'s relentless and driven contributions in the areas of departmental output and staff performance, played a huge role in [kit production]'s overall departmental success in 2010.
Dkt. No. 43–2 at 40. Snyder also praised Lauth for doing “a very good job this year in avoiding any direct or indirect staff conflict.” Id. at 37...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLane v. Sch. City of Mishawaka, CIVIL NO. 3:15CV119
...action; and (4) a similarly situated, substantially younger employee received more favorable treatment." Lauth v. Covance, Inc., 155 F.Supp.3d 855, 876 (S.D. Ind. 2016). McLane has no evidence that similarly situated, younger employees received more favorable treatment than him. Like claims......