Nash v. Optomec, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 May 2016
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 15-1845 (RHK/BRT)
• Citation: 185 F.Supp.3d 1129
• Parties: Thomas Nash, Plaintiff, v. Optomec, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

185 F.Supp.3d 1129

Thomas Nash, Plaintiff,

v.Optomec, Inc., Defendant.

Civ. No. 15-1845 (RHK/BRT)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed May 5, 2016

Stephen C. Fiebiger, Stephen C. Fiebiger Law Office, Chartered, Burnsville, Minnesota, for Plaintiff.

Andrew E. Tanick, David McKinney, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

In this action, Plaintiff Thomas Nash alleges that his former employer, Defendant Optomec, Inc. ("Optomec"), terminated his employment on account of his age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Minn. Stat. § 363A.01 et seq . Presently before the Court is Optomec's Motion for Summary Judgment; for the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.

BACKGROUND

Viewed in the light most favorable to Nash, the record reveals the following facts, most of which are undisputed.

Nash was born in 1958 and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in applied mathematics from St. John's University in 1980. After working a number of jobs over the ensuing decades, he returned to school in 2011, enrolling in a nanoscience technology program at Dakota County Technical College ("DCTC").

In 2013, as part of his studies, Nash and several other students toured the St. Paul facility of Optomec, a New Mexico-based company that develops and manufactures 3D printing systems. At the time, Nash needed to complete an internship in order to obtain his degree, and he told one of his professors that he was interested in serving as an intern at Optomec. The professor, in turn, contacted John Lees, Optomec's 49-year-old Vice President of Engineering. Lees brought in Nash for two interviews and eventually offered him a full-time, paid internship for the summer and fall semesters, reporting directly to Lees; Nash was 54 at the time.

Nash began working for Optomec as a "lab technician" intern in July 2013, running tests on lab equipment, taking measurements, recording data, and cleaning the equipment. He initially shared these duties with two other interns: Travis Evans and Chenxing Pei, mechanical-engineering students at the University of Minnesota. Evans had been working for Optomec for a period of time before Nash arrived, and Lees asked Evans to help train Nash. Pei, who arrived a short time later, also helped train Nash on assembling and disassembling equipment in the lab. When Evans and Pei returned to school full-time in the fall of 2013, Optomec brought in a new intern, Dan Bakke, another engineering student at the University of Minnesota. Evans, Pei, and Bakke were all in their early twenties.

According to Nash, Lees "gave [him] the cold shoulder" during his internship. He avers that Lees would not invite him to join discussions in his office, as he did with Evans, Pei, and Bakke. He also alleges that Lees provided training to other interns that he did not receive. Nevertheless, in several reports Nash submitted to DCTC, he described his internship positively. He wrote, among other things, that he liked the experience of "working for a small company, with small teams, and not a lot of formality," and that he found the environment at Optomec "to be what [he had] expected, and the type of environment [he] enjoy[ed] working in."

At the conclusion of Nash's internship in December 2013, Lees submitted to DCTC a written review of Nash's performance. His assessment was fairly tepid. Though he recognized Nash offered "much appreciated discipline and rigor," Lees felt previous interns had exhibited "more learning potential." On a scale from 1 to 5, he rated Nash a "3" for critical-thinking skills and noted that "[u]nderstanding and troubleshooting systems are ... a bit beyond" him. Lees also noted that lab procedures involving physical skill or dexterity were "challenging" for Nash. Nash was not provided a copy of this assessment.

Nash completed his internship with Optomec and received an associate's degree from DCTC in December 2013. Around that time, he informed Lees that he had enjoyed working at the company and was interested in a "permanent" position. Lees spoke to John Wright, an Optomec engineer who had worked with Nash during his internship. Like Lees, Wright harbored concerns about Nash, believing he was not a "skilled technician" and that he required detailed instructions in order to perform tasks. Despite Wright's comments and his own misgivings with Nash's performance, Lees extended an offer of employment to Nash as a full-time lab technician in mid-December 2013. Nash accepted and began "regular" employment with Optomec in January 2014. At the time, Nash was the only full-time lab technician reporting to Lees, supporting the work of several new-product-development engineers. His duties were not appreciably different from those he had performed as a lab-technician intern.

Nash alleges that Lees's favoritism of younger employees continued after he began working for Optomec on a "permanent" (non-intern) basis. He claims, for example, that Evans—who was then working five hours per week as a student intern—was sent on company-paid trips to visit clients, including a trip to Germany, that were not offered to him.¹ He also claims that Lees showed favoritism in connection with a chemical spill in April 2014. Nash spent most of a work day cleaning the spill, aided for a short time by Bakke. But when the spill was discussed in a weekly meeting, Lees "emphasized concern about Bakke's exposure to the hazardous chemical from the spill, but made no mention of Nash's exposure," which Nash claims "humiliated" him. In addition, Nash asserts he was eventually told to report to Wright, while Bakke and Evans reported directly to Lees.

According to Lees, over time he became increasingly dissatisfied with Nash as a lab technician. Although Nash was performing adequately in that role, Lees believed he struggled with critical thinking and troubleshooting, traits he thought important as Optomec continued to expand. Wright expressed similar concerns to Lees, advising that Nash was not capable of "perform[ing] more troubleshooting [and] do[ing] a lot more independent work" or "go[ing] off and interfac[ing] with customers." Lees had similar discussions with Optomec's Chief Executive Officer, David Ramahi, who agreed with Lees's and Wright's assessments. Lees testified in his deposition:

I was kind of taking stock of the current situation and looking ahead. We were anticipating getting further orders from our Chinese customer for more production equipment.... [M]y judgment was that I needed to have team members that were able to support customers and undertake, you know, a higher level of troubleshooting than we had been doing to that point. The business was growing. There was going to be a need to support more customers. We needed just a higher level of functionality across the board on the team.

Other people who could fulfill the role of lab technician could learn from the experience ... and build on that knowledge to function in a customer service role and in a troubleshooting role, but [Nash] was not able to build on that experience and take it to that next level.... If we continued to grow, we would likely hire someone to come into the role of lab technician and be able to learn and grow from it the way [others] had done, but [Nash] was not able to do.

I decided that [Nash] was not—not progressing beyond the kind of basic lab skills. I had decided that I was kind of changing my views on what should—what was kind of the business function of the lab technicians, that they—I saw it as a way to bring people into the technology [ ] but then ... grow and progress beyond that point, and I could see that [Nash] did not have the capability to progress beyond that point.

And, you know, there were some ... some of the issues with his performance were not getting better, despite us trying to coach him and work with him ... basically kind of stubbornness and lack of willingness to progress. So I decided to let him go.

For his part, Nash disputes that he lacked troubleshooting skills and, in fact, successfully undertook several projects at Optomec that required him to problem solve. He also avers that at no point prior to the termination of his employment did anyone from Optomec inform him that he had not been meeting expectations, adequately growing his skills, or demonstrating troubleshooting abilities. And, he notes that Optomec's written job description for the position of lab technician nowhere mentions troubleshooting or making independent trips to clients.

On June 6, 2014, Nash was called into a meeting with Lees and Wright. Lees informed Nash that his employment was being terminated because Lees wanted to move in a "different direction." The parties dispute what happened next. Lees and Wright testified in their depositions that upon hearing the news, Nash stood up, started shouting, and waved his arms in a threatening manner. Nash does not dispute becoming upset, but he denies having stood up, waving his arms, or acting threatening in any way. It is undisputed, however, that he repeatedly told Lees that his (Nash's) mother had sued a former employer for age discrimination and had settled on favorable terms. Nash further claims that he told Lees and Wright that he felt he was being discriminated against because of his age, and neither denied Nash's allegation. At the time of his termination, Nash was 55 years old.

On September 16, 2014, Nash filed a charge of age discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights ("DHR"). After an investigation, the DHR found no probable cause to believe Optomec had engaged in discrimination and issued Nash a right-to-sue letter. Nash then commenced the instant action in the Ramsey County District Court, alleging a single count of age discrimination in violation of the MHRA; Optomec promptly removed the action to this Court. With discovery complete,...