Mimi Ma v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-2433,13-2433 |
| Parties | MIMI MA, Appellant v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 6, 2014
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
Mimi Ma appeals the District Court's summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC. A Muslim woman who wears a headscarf, Ma claimed that Westinghouse fired her because of gender and/or religious discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII and Pennsylvania state law.Because we agree with the District Court that Ma did not present evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that Westinghouse's stated reasons for firing her were pretextual, we will affirm.
In November 2007, Ma began working for Westinghouse as Program Manager of Project Excellence, a company-wide program designed to improve project management practices, provide a standard set of project management tools, and increase standardization in project execution.
In April 2008, Ma received her first performance review, which was positive. Among other things, it mentioned that Ma had engaged with the job quickly, built a relationship network with counterparts, mentored project managers, had twice been asked to participate in companywide teams, kept senior management informed of her proposals, and was developing creative and worthy project management initiatives. Ma was praised for her energy and rated highly "based on the fact that she has displayed competencies that would seem to exceed expectations." App. at 285, 290. The review also noted that "it is too early to determine long term performance" and encouraged Ma to "continue to strive to make improvements in the Project Excellence program" and to "balance working on initiatives with solving day to day problems." Id. at 290.
In August 2008, Westinghouse created a new department, Nuclear Services Major Business Delivery, and appointed Michael Kaveney as its director. In announcing the reorganization, Westinghouse stated that Kaveney would "have responsibility for ProjectExcellence and setting project management standards and processes globally"; Ma, meanwhile, would maintain her position as Project Excellence manager and report to Kaveney, instead of her previous supervisor in another department.
Kaveney was more hands-on than Ma's previous supervisors, and their relationship soon soured. Not long after the two had begun working together, Kaveney issued a written warning to Ma for showing a mock torture video1 at a conference in August 2008. Soon after receiving the warning, Ma told Michele DeWitt, a female mentor who worked in a different division of the company, that Kaveney was rude and hostile to her. Throughout the fall and winter of 2008-09, Ma and Kaveney met regularly to discuss Kaveney's goals for Ma's projects. Kaveney conveyed to Ma his displeasure with what he perceived to be her lack of progress.
In February 2009, Ma again spoke with DeWitt about Kaveney. At DeWitt's recommendation, she then complained to Westinghouse's Human Resources department that Kaveney was rude and condescending, withheld resources and key information, excluded her from meetings, and assigned her responsibilities to others. A Human Resources director promptly met with Kaveney to discuss Ma's complaints. Thereafter, Kaveney made a spreadsheet to detail his interactions with Ma. In the spreadsheet, Kaveney noted that at the beginning of September 2008, he had assigned Ma three mainpriorities, including "completion of the Project Excellence Report Card"; in October, he wrote that he reminded her that the Project Excellence Report Card should remain her top priority, and also noted two other priorities he wanted her to achieve before working on other issues. The spreadsheet detailed the many days on which Kaveney said he met with Ma to discuss uncompleted tasks and projects, and it also documented Kaveney's frustration with often not knowing where Ma was or what she was doing. Kaveney also stated in the spreadsheet that he had assigned some of Ma's work to other employees in the group "because I needed to get [it] done." Ma disputed the veracity of the spreadsheet, including the dates of some of the entries, a deadline Kaveney wrote that he had set, and whether Kaveney had previously told her a particular item was a priority.
Ma and Kaveney met with a Human Resources manager to discuss the complaints, but their interactions continued to be difficult. In a February 2009 email, Ma told DeWitt that she believed Kaveney had never intended to work with her and that he and another employee were essentially squeezing her out for reasons she did not understand. Ma claims that in response, DeWitt told her that perhaps Kaveney had "a problem with women or people with your religious background."2 Ma also expressed disappointment in a letter to Human Resources that "the issues that I had brought to HR's attention have not been addressed" and stated that Kaveney had falsely accused her of missing deadlines after she complained to Human Resources about him. App. at 364.
In March 2009, Kaveney emailed Ma asking about where certain projects stood and to tell her he was interested in attending a project kick-off event. As it happened, the kick-off had occurred that morning, and Ma had not invited Kaveney. Unsatisfied with Ma's responses, Kaveney sent follow-up emails, stating, among other things: "Frankly, the tit for tat responses I'm receiving are unprofessional and they need to end." Id. at 296. In response, Ma stated that her replies had been "concise and completely professional," and that she had not invited Kaveney to the event because people in his position were not always present at kick-offs, and she would have invited him if she had known of his interest. Id. at 295-96. Kaveney sent the entire exchange to Human Resources, writing: " Id. at 297.
Kaveney's dissatisfaction with Ma's ability to meet deadlines continued, and the two continued to engage in contentious exchanges. For instance, in May, Ma accused Kaveney of making "unfair and false accusations" about a missed deadline and told him that he had been "clearly wrong." Id. at 379-80. At Ma's annual performance review, in June 2009, Kaveney gave Ma a low rating for falling below expectations and not meeting objectives. The review noted that Ma worked hard, offered many new ideas, was recognized as a project management professional, and was a competent presenter. However, it criticized her for numerous missed deadlines on key projects, poor communication (such as emails that were too long and numerous, and a lack of follow-upand consistency), and perception of her leadership by executives as rushed, disorganized, and not visible or engaged. Kaveney also wrote: Id. at 301.
Thereafter, Kaveney placed Ma on a Performance Improvement Plan (Plan), which was to last through the end of September and contained an itemized list of performance objectives upon which Ma's continued employment depended. In addition to addressing the problems noted in Ma's review, the Plan described Ma's level of absenteeism as unacceptable. Ma refused to sign the Plan, arguing that it did not reflect her job performance, although she testified that she nonetheless tried to meet its objectives. In July, she prepared a point-by-point rebuttal of the Plan and claimed—for the first time in any document—that she believed she was being discriminated against. She also continued to meet with Kaveney and Human Resources pursuant to the Plan.
In August, Ma told Kaveney that she wanted to take a three-week vacation starting in September. Kaveney told her the timing was problematic, given the limited length of time left in the Plan, but nonetheless allowed her to take two weeks off. The company also extended the Plan deadline to October 15 to give Ma additional time. On October 27, 2009, Westinghouse terminated Ma's employment. In the termination letter, Kaveney wrote that Ma was fired for work performance not meeting expectations—including a lack of consistency in meeting deadlines, a lack of good judgment, and an "inability to consistently accomplish objectives through others"—and her failure to treat otheremployees with dignity and respect, such as in "extremely disrespectful and borderline insubordinate" communications. Although management had tried to help Ma succeed, the letter stated, she was generally resistant to those efforts. Ma disputed this characterization of her work. A non-Muslim male took over her responsibilities.
Ma timely filed a complaint with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter. She filed this suit in July 2011, and the District Court granted summary judgment for Westinghouse in April 2013.
We review the District Court's summary judgment de novo. Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 425 (3d Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper when the moving party has established "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Burton, 707 F.3d at 425. However, to survive summary judgment, "the non-moving party must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence." Id. (quoting Jakimas v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 485 F.3d 770, 777 (3d Cir. 2007))....
To continue reading
Request your trial