Matthews v. Corning Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 08–CV–6323 EAW.,08–CV–6323 EAW.
• Citation: 77 F.Supp.3d 275
• Parties: Suzanne MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, David Dawson–Elli, Michael Moore, Cynthia Giroux, and Marc Giroux, as aiders and abettors, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

77 F.Supp.3d 275

Suzanne MATTHEWS, Plaintiff

v.CORNING INCORPORATED, David Dawson–Elli, Michael Moore, Cynthia Giroux, and Marc Giroux, as aiders and abettors, Defendants.

No. 08–CV–6323 EAW.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed Dec. 31, 2014.

Suzanne M. Matthews, Horseheads, NY, pro se.

Mimi C. Satter, Satter & Andrews LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andrew M. Burns, Jill K. Schultz, Davidson Fink LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Suzanne Matthews (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action against Corning Incorporated (“Corning”), David Dawson–Elli, Michael Moore, Cynthia Giroux, and Marc Giroux (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., (“Title VII”) and the New York State Executive Law §§ 290 et seq. (Dkt. 50). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 186, 199, 208). Because there is no disputed issue of material fact that Plaintiff cannot establish a gender discrimination or retaliation claim, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Corning is a multi-national corporation with approximately 25,000 employees, and is a world leader in specialty glass and ceramics. (Dkt. 186–2 at ¶ 1; Dkt. 208–5 at ¶ 1). Corning hired Plaintiff in 1994 as an “at will” employee. (Dkt. 186–2 at ¶ 3; Dkt. 208–5 at ¶ 3).

While Plaintiff was at Corning, she had an informal coaching relationship with Johnny Terry (“Terry”), who at the time was a project engineer in the MT & E Division at Corning. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 5; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶¶ 1–2). The MT & E Division is the corporate engineering group that provides engineering resources for the business units and projects within Corning. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 4). Plaintiff told Terry that she hoped to be promoted from a C-band engineer to a D-band engineer. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 10; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 5). In September 2003, Terry became the manager at MT & E and Plaintiff's direct supervisor, during which time he worked more closely with Plaintiff, and began talking with her about long-term career goals and development. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 6; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 2).

In January 2005, Plaintiff was assigned to work on the “SiOG project,” which involved a team of scientists working together at Coming's Sullivan Park facility. (Dkt. 186–2 at ¶ 9; Dkt. 208–5 at ¶ 9). Plaintiff was a “Process Leader” on the project. (Dkt. 186–2 at ¶ 9; Dkt. 208–5 at ¶ 9). Plaintiff's project manager on the SiOG project was Jeffrey Cites (“Cites”). (Dkt. 186–2 at ¶ 11; Dkt. 208–5 at ¶ 11). Karen Madison (“Madison”), a human resources manager at Corning, stated that the SiOG project was “diverse, with a number of women and minorities on the project.” (Dkt. 186–9 at ¶ 6). Cites contends that beginning in early 2006, he developed concerns about Plaintiff's performance on the SiOG project, including that Plaintiff did not spend enough time in the lab; that she went on a business trip funded by Corning that was “a waste of time and money,” which “showed extremely poor judgment on [Plaintiff's] part;” that she did not work well with others; and that she was not professional. (Dkt. 209–2 at ¶¶ 7–9).

Terry contends he had concerns regarding Plaintiff's leadership skills on the SiOG project and therefore gave her feedback regarding how to improve those skills (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 9); however, Plaintiff contends that Terry “never expressed concerns about [her] leadership skills” (Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 4). Instead, Plaintiff contends that Terry said that Cites had “poor leadership skills,” that Cites “knew [Plaintiff] was a better leader than him,” and that to “go to the next level” Plaintiff needed to “accept the mistreatment on the SiOG project” and “refrain from saying the words ‘harassment’ or ‘hostile work environment’....” (Id. ).

Plaintiff spoke to Terry about a promotion from C-band engineer to D-band engineer. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 10; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 5). Terry contends that he explained to Plaintiff that a promotion to D-band was not automatic, and not everyone at Corning received such a promotion. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 10). Terry also explained to Plaintiff that she was not yet ready for a promotion based on the objective criteria required by Corning to receive a promotion to D-band because her leadership, management, and conflict resolution skills needed improvement. (Id. at ¶¶ 15–16). Defendants describe these objective criteria to include “knowledge,” “problem solving,” “discretion/latitude,” “impact,” and “liaison” skills; D-band engineers are expected to have expertise in the aforementioned criteria, while expectations for C-band engineers are not as high. (Id. at ¶¶ 11–14). However, Plaintiff contends that Terry told her that promotion to D-band was “political,” and that it would be necessary to obtain the support of “Jeff Knutson and the directors on the MTE leadership team” for her to achieve a D-band promotion. (Dkt. 208–3 at ¶¶ 5, 13).

During the time Plaintiff was “coached” by Terry, she expressed interest in other employment positions. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶¶ 17–21; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶¶ 15–20). Plaintiff expressed interest in the following positions:

(1) Tank Supervisor (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 17; Dkt. 186–10 at 32:23–25, 33:1–4). The Tank Supervisor position was filled during the time that Plaintiff was in the Pressware division at Corning and before she started on the SiOG project. (Dkt. 186–10 at 32:23–25, 33:1–4);

(2) Process Engineering Supervisor/Manager (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 18; Dkt. 186–10 at 40:13–21). This position was a D-band position, and was filled by a woman named Jelena Langensipen, in November 2005. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 18; Dkt. 186–10 at 40:6–19; see also Dkt. 186–9 at ¶ 19 and Ex. D);

(3) Manufacturing Leader (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 19; Dkt. 186–10 at 8:6–17). Terry contends that this position was also a D-band position. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 19). Plaintiff asked for Terry's endorsement for the position; however, Terry and Cites did not believe that Plaintiff had the skill set for this position. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 19; Dkt. 186–10 at 9:7–11). Terry and Cites contend that the decision to select Steven Good for the Manufacturing Leader position rather than Plaintiff was objective and had nothing to do with Plaintiff's gender (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 19; Dkt. 209–4 at ¶ 4), and that Good was selected for the position because he had significant project management and functional management experience. (Dkt. 209–2 at ¶ 13).

(4) Process Engineering Supervisor (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 20; Dkt. 186–10 at 20:6–19). Terry contends that this was also a D-band position. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 20). Terry states that he informed Plaintiff that she was not a candidate because Corning already had a candidate for the position, Max Bliss. (Id. ). Terry explains that Bliss was awarded the position because he was “objectively more qualified for the position than [Plaintiff],” as Bliss had previously worked as a project leader and supervised a team, including approximately nine direct reports; had demonstrated superior leadership and interpersonal skills and an ability to handle technical, interpersonal, and high-pressure situations; and was a mid-career hire with additional job experience from other employers. (Id. ). Plaintiff contends that Terry never informed her that the supervisory position was filled, nor that she was not a candidate, but rather that there were two project supervisor positions available. (Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 16). Plaintiff contends that Terry told her that he intended to promote both her and Bliss to supervisor positions, but that it would be easier to promote Bliss. (Id. ). Plaintiff maintains that she had “significantly more functional supervisory experience than Max....” (Id. at ¶ 17); and,

(5) Innovation Leader (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 21; Dkt. 186–10 at 45:9–18). Terry states that he encouraged Plaintiff to apply for this C-band position. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 21). Terry further contends that he believed that Plaintiff had an informational interview for the position, but Corning later decided not to fill it, and no one received the position. (Id. ). Terry contends that Corning will sometimes post a position, but then not fill it based on business or economic reasons. (Id. ). Madison testified that she was not able to find any record of the Innovation Leader position having been posted. (Dkt. 186–9 at ¶ 20).

Plaintiff also contends generally that other positions for which she attempted to apply were cancelled. (Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 20). Despite Plaintiff's contentions that she was denied various promotions based on her gender, she admits that she has received two promotions after transferring to the MT & E Division at Corning. (Dkt. 208–4 at ¶ 63).

Around April or May of 2006, Plaintiff reported to Terry that Cites and others on the SiOG project were not paying attention to her in group meetings, and that Cites raised his voice when speaking with her. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 22; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 21–22). Terry states that in November 2006, Plaintiff informed him that she was experiencing harassment on the SiOG Project, and that she wanted to leave the SiOG project. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶ 23).

In November 2006, Plaintiff made an internal complaint of gender discrimination contending that the SiOG project environment was not inclusive of women and minorities. (Dkt. 186–8 at ¶¶ 23–24; Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 8). Plaintiff contends that she told Cites that she was leaving the SiOG project because of his failure to maintain an environment that was inclusive of women and minorities, and that Cites responded by raising his voice and pointing his finger in her face. (Dkt. 208–3 at ¶ 53).

In late fall 2006, Madison stated that she received a notebook from Plaintiff entitled “SiOG Resignation Decision Suzanne Matthews,” dated “11/20/06.” (Dkt. 186–9 at ¶ 7)...