Lin v. Rohm & Haas Co.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 11–3158.
• Citation: 865 F.Supp.2d 649
• Parties: Dr. Manhua Mandy LIN, Plaintiff, v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY d/b/a Dow Advanced Materials, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

865 F.Supp.2d 649

Dr. Manhua Mandy LIN, Plaintiff,

v.ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY d/b/a Dow Advanced Materials, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11–3158.

United States District Court,

E.D. Pennsylvania.

March 26, 2012.

Carol A. Mager, Marjorie P. Albee, Console Law Office LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Raymond A. Kresge, Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

YOHN, District Judge.

Dr. Manhua Mandy Lin brings this action against Rohm and Haas Company d/b/a Dow Advanced Materials (“Rohm and Haas”), alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (the “PHRA”), 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 951 et seq., as well as breach of contract and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits between the parties. Dr. Lin's claims in this action stem largely from Rohm and Haas's conduct in a prior lawsuit brought by the company in state court on June 2, 2000, and not yet finally resolved. In a federal lawsuit filed on June 5, 2002, Dr. Lin unsuccessfully challenged the initiation of that state lawsuit and certain other conduct by Rohm and Haas. The federal lawsuit was finally resolved on October 28, 2004, when the Third Circuit dismissed Dr. Lin's appeal as untimely.

Currently before me is Rohm and Haas's motion to dismiss Dr. Lin's complaint. Rohm and Haas contends that the prior federal and state lawsuits bar Dr. Lin's claims in this action, and makes several other arguments for dismissal. Because I agree that some of Dr. Lin's retaliation claims are barred by res judicata, I will grant Rohm and Haas's motion to dismiss those claims. But I will deny the motion with respect to Dr. Lin's other claims.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

Dr. Lin was hired by Rohm and Haas as a research scientist on January 3, 1989. (Compl. ¶ 23.) After she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) in January 1999, Dr. Lin and Rohm and Haas entered into a settlement agreement in November 1999, in which she agreed to resign. ( Id. ¶¶ 25–26.) The parties also entered into a companion agreement that contained a non-compete provision and addressed certain confidentiality issues. ( Id. ¶¶ 27, 29.) The agreements authorized Dr. Lin to publish papers and make presentations regarding her research, subject to trade-secret review by Rohm and Haas. ( Id. ¶¶ 28–29.)

On June 2, 2000, Rohm and Haas filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, alleging that Dr. Lin had taken confidential information from Rohm and Haas without its permission and had disclosed its trade secrets in a presentation to the American Chemical Society. ( Id. ¶¶ 43, 46.) The trial court granted a preliminary injunction against Dr. Lin on April 17, 2001, ² which the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed on February 20, 2003. See Rohm & Haas Co. v. Lin, No. 1246 EDA 2001, 821 A.2d 142 (Pa.Super.Ct. Feb. 20, 2003) (attached as Exhibit A to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss).

Dr. Lin alleges that in March 2003, after the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's preliminary injunction, Rohm and Haas learned that EverNu Technology, LLC (“EverNu”), a company founded by Dr. Lin in June 2000 to conduct chemical research (Compl. ¶¶ 50–55), had been awarded a grant by the Small Business Innovative Research (the “SBIR”) program of the U.S. Department of Energy (the “DOE”), and that Rohm and Haas “began to improperly use the [state lawsuit] in an attempt to obtain EverNu's intellectual property” ( id. ¶ 85).

In April 2003, for example, Rohm and Haas served Dr. Lin with a document request seeking all grant applications filed by EverNu, as well as EverNu's communications with the DOE. Notwithstanding Dr. Lin's objections, the trial court granted Rohm and Haas's motion to compel discovery. ( Id. Ex. A, Statement of Complaint Filed with the EEOC on May 20, 2004 (“EEOC Statement”) ¶ 9.)

Similarly, on August 20, 2003, Rohm and Haas served a subpoena on EverNu allegedly demanding that EverNu produce documentscontaining confidential business information, trade secrets, and intellectual property. ( Id. ¶ 87.) EverNu filed a motion for a protective order, but the trial court denied the motion and later granted a motion by Rohm and Haas seeking to compel EverNu to provide the requested information. ( Id. ¶¶ 88–90.) After EverNu and Dr. Lin failed to comply with the orders, the court imposed monetary sanctions against Dr. Lin and EverNu. ( Id. ¶ 91.) EverNu appealed this order, but it was quashed as interlocutory. ( Id.)

Meanwhile, on June 5, 2002, while her appeal of the preliminary injunction was pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Dr. Lin filed a federal lawsuit in this district (“ Lin I” ), alleging, among other things, that Rohm and Haas had filed the state lawsuit as retaliation against her for her informal complaints to the EEOC, in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.³ The district court initially denied Rohm and Haas's motion for summary judgment as to that claim, concluding, in a memorandum and order dated November 13, 2003, that Dr. Lin had cast sufficient doubt on Rohm and Haas's proffered nonretaliatory reason for initiating the state lawsuit to defeat summary judgment. See Lin v. Rohm & Haas Co., 293 F.Supp.2d 505 (E.D.Pa.2003). Upon Rohm and Haas's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, renewed motion for summary judgment, however, the district court concluded that the state lawsuit was not an “adverse employment action” under Title VII, and in a memorandum and order dated January 22, 2004, granted Rohm and Haas's motion for summary judgment. See Lin v. Rohm & Haas Co., 301 F.Supp.2d 403 (E.D.Pa.2004).

Dr. Lin filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the district court's conclusion that the state lawsuit was not an “adverse employment action.” In an order dated May 6, 2004, the district court denied Dr. Lin's motion for reconsideration, asserting that “[t]his Court does not believe that Defendant's lawful use of the state judicial system and its discovery process can be the basis of Plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation under Title VII.” Order at n. 1, Lin v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 02–3612 (E.D.Pa. May 6, 2004). Noting that, in her motion for reconsideration, Dr. Lin had “largely predicate[d] the ‘adverse employment action’ prong of her retaliation claim on the discovery requests propounded on EverNu,” and that the state court had denied Dr. Lin's and EverNu's challenges to such discovery requests, the district court asserted, “We do not believe that discovery sanctioned by the state court can constitute an adverse employment action simply because the correlating legal fees have affected Plaintiff's salary.” Id.

Dr. Lin filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied in an order dated July 27, 2004. Dr. Lin then filed a notice of appeal on August 18, 2004, but on October 28, 2004, the Third Circuit dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely.

Meanwhile, on June 21, 2004, Dr. Lin filed an EEOC charge—her fourth such charge—alleging that Rohm and Haas had retaliated against her by filing “burdensome and unlawful requests for discovery and production of documents” in the state lawsuit.⁴ (Compl. Ex. A, Charge of Discrimination; see also Compl. ¶ 17.) She alleged that the wrongful conduct occurred between August 20, 2003, and May 20, 2004. (Compl. Ex. A, Charge of Discrimination.)

With respect to the ongoing state litigation, Dr. Lin alleges that in June 2006, “Rohm and Haas caused a $32,200 judgment to be entered against ... EverNu ... and caused writs of execution to be served upon EverNu's banks, which froze EverNu's accounts.” (Compl. ¶ 92.) In June 2007, however, the trial court ordered that the judgment be struck. ( Id.) In or around June 2006, Rohm and Haas also served a subpoena on Temple University, EverNu's research collaborator, seeking EverNu's “confidential and proprietary research information.” ( Id. ¶ 93.) According to Dr. Lin, the court “forced Temple University to produce 750 pages of research documents that belonged to EverNu.” ( Id.)

In March 2007, after Rohm and Haas had received the research documents from Temple University, Rohm and Haas allegedly “approached Dr. Lin and made a ‘settlement proposal.’ ” ( Id. ¶ 94.) According to Dr. Lin, Rohm and Haas offered to settle the lawsuit if EverNu “grant[ed] Rohm and Haas a non-exclusive license for the technology underpinning [its methacrylic acid research project] for no consideration.” ( Id. ¶ 95.) Dr. Lin further alleges that Rohm and Haas “threatened to destroy EverNu's relationship with the DOE if EverNu did not agree to the ‘settlement proposal’ and provide Rohm and Haas with its technology for free.” ( Id. ¶ 96.) Nonetheless, Dr. Lin and EverNu rejected the settlement proposal. ( Id. ¶ 97.)

Meanwhile, Dr. Lin failed to comply with the state court's discovery orders, and in December 2007, Rohm and Haas moved for a default judgment against Dr. Lin as a discovery sanction. ( Id. ¶ 98.) On May 5, 2008, the trial court entered a default judgment against Dr. Lin and issued a permanent injunction as a discovery sanction. ( Id. ¶ 99.) The injunction provided:

1. The Defendant Dr. Lin is permanently enjoined from using, disclosing or divulging directly or indirectly any information that Plaintiff Rohm and Haas Company considers confidential or a trade secret.

2. The Defendant Dr. Lin and any other entity or individual associated with Dr. Lin or acting on her behalf are permanently enjoined from proceeding with methacrylic acid research and making other disclosures and uses of Rohm and Haas['s] trade secrets.

3. The Defendant Dr. Lin shall cease and desist from consulting, performing any research or engaging in other activities pursuant to the outstanding EverNu Technologies LLC's contracts...