Nicholls v. Philips Semiconductor Mfg.

• Decision Date: 14 January 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 07–CV–6789 (KMK)(GAY).
• Citation: 760 F.Supp.2d 407
• Parties: George NICHOLLS, Plaintiff,v.PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, Philips Electronics North America, and NXP Semiconductors, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

760 F.Supp.2d 407

George NICHOLLS, Plaintiff,

v.PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, Philips Electronics North America, and NXP Semiconductors, Defendants.

Case No. 07–CV–6789 (KMK)(GAY).

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

Jan. 14, 2011.

Steven Felsenfeld, Esq., The Hilpert Law Offices, Croton–On–Hudson, NY, for Plaintiff.Joseph DeGuiseppe, Jr., Esq., Bleakley, Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

George Nicholls (“Nicholls,” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against Philips Semiconductor Manufacturing (“PSM”), Philips Electronics North America (“PENA”), and NXP Semiconductors (“NXP”), (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Facts

Plaintiff was born on August 31, 1945, and was 59 years old at the time the critical events allegedly took place. (Decl. of Steven Felsenfeld in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. (“Felsenfeld Decl.”) Ex. I.) Plaintiff began his career as an engineer in 1967, and was employed from that time until his voluntary resignation in August 2005, at a semiconductor manufacturing plant in Fishkill, New York. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement (“Defs.' 56.1”) ¶¶ 3, 5, 9–10, 78; Aff. of George A. Nicholls (“Nicholls Aff.”) ¶ 3.) ¹ The plant was operated by PSM, and, before that, by MiCRUS and IBM, with whom Plaintiff was previously employed until PSM bought the Fishkill plant in 2000. ( Id. ¶¶ 3–5, 9–10.) Plaintiff was never an employee of NXP, which purchased the Fishkill plant in 2006, after Plaintiff resigned. ( Id. ¶ 7.) At the time of his resignation, Plaintiff held the position of E–4 Senior Process Engineer, working with “TEOS (Tetraethyl-ortho-silicon) tools” and other tools at the Fishkill facility. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12; Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl.'s 56.1”) ¶ 11.)

On several occasions, Plaintiff was unfavorably reviewed by his supervisors for his sarcastic approach to problem-solving on collaborative projects. (Defs.' 56.1¶ 13; Aff. of Joseph DeGuiseppe, Jr. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (“DeGuiseppe Aff.”) Exs. C–E.) For example, in his 2003 Performance Review, Plaintiff's supervisor, Jerry Mase (“Mase”), noted that “[Plaintiff] is often negative and contrarian, in some cases even before he understand [sic] the facts and detail. As a leader in the department I expect just the opposite. We've had conversions [sic] in previous years with no improvement. This is a requirement to maintain acceptable performance in 2004.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 14; DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. C, at 0007.) Plaintiff's overall rating for 2003 was “Fully Acceptable, Declining.” (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 15; DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. C, at 0012.) ² In 2004, another supervisor, Mary Matera–Longo (“Matera–Longo”), commented that Plaintiff “[i]s a skilled, articulate communicator but the negative, skeptical comments he interjects in the conversation makes [sic] it difficult for others to provide own [sic] input. Also tends to hilite [sic] barriers to progress rather than to build on ‘one step at a time’ solutions.” (DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. E, at 1209.) Plaintiff's overall rating for 2004 was “Partially Meets, Well Placed,” a rating with which Plaintiff claims he did not agree. ( Id. at 1211; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 18.) ³

In Fall 2004, PSM conducted a benchmarking study and concluded that the Fishkill facility was “dramatically overstaffed.” (Dep. of Dr. Wendy Arienzo (“Arienzo Dep.”) 53:5–55:15.) During that time, Dr. Arienzo, then the General Manager of the Fishkill facility, determined that a reduction in employees was necessary for PSM to meet its financial targets. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 21; Arienzo Dep. 73:3–6.) In October 2004, Dr. Arienzo and her staff implemented a ranking process. (Arienzo Dep, 82:13–83:8.) In December 2004, a voluntary reduction in force (“VRIF”) was offered, which was followed by a performance-based reduction in force (“RIF”) based on the October 2004 rankings, in January 2005. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 23; Arienzo Dep. 80:13–17, 92:7–20.) Plaintiff's employment status was not affected by this VRIF/RIF. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 24.)

After the October 2004 ranking process, Mase—Plaintiff's second-level manager at the time—and Matera–Longo, his direct supervisor, discussed the need to get Plaintiff more involved in the day-to-day activities on the factory floor. (Dep. of Jerry Mase (“Mase Dep.”) 98:6–99:4.) Both Mase and Matera–Longo believed that Plaintiff needed to focus on more specific technical assignments, as opposed to higher-level projects, so that his contributions would be more concrete and recognized. ( Id. 98:23–99:1; DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. D, at 1256.) In December 2004, Matera–Longo prepared an Individual Development Plan (“IDP”) for Plaintiff to assist and guide him in developing the requisite skills for his new job responsibilities. (DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. D.) In accord with the provisions of the IDP, Plaintiff began to spend more time on the TEOS functions, which required more day-to-day factory floor activity, while moving away from his former duties, such as cost accounting. (Dep. of George Nicholls (“Nicholls Dep.”) 101:6–106:16; Mase Dep. 98:23–99:1.) Plaintiff believed that the IDP was fair. (Nicholls Dep. 105:24–106:5.)

In early 2005, Mase became Plaintiff's direct supervisor as a result of a reorganization of the engineering department, and, therefore, was responsible for monitoring Plaintiff's progress on his IDP and his new job responsibilities. ( Id. 91:5–17; Mase Dep. 106:15–108:21.) Mase met with Plaintiff several times in 2005 to discuss specific targets and goals, and, by all accounts, was willing to work with Plaintiff to make sure his workload was manageable. (Mase Dep. 108:11–21; Nicholls Dep. 148:4–6, 150:8–16.) In May 2005, Mase noted in Plaintiff's IDP that Plaintiff was making progress, and that “[t]he TEOS assignment has been [a] catalyst to positive change.” (DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. D, at 1078.) Plaintiff believed his relationship with Mase at the time was “[v]ery good.” (Nicholls Dep. 146:18–20.)

In June and July of 2005, another extensive ranking process was conducted at the Fishkill site. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 36.) Plaintiff, along with 53 other PSM employees, was ranked as a “bottom” performer as a result of this process. ( Id. ¶ 37.) Around this time, Fishkill management determined that the initial VRIF/RIF packages had not, by themselves, moved the facility close to its financial targets. (Arienzo Dep. 107:11–23.) In addition to other cost-cutting measures, management decided to conduct another reduction in force. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 41–42; Arienzo Dep. 160:23–161:4, 196:4–198:16.) At the time, the protocol with respect to terminations at PSM, whether in connection with a reduction in force or other types of terminations, was to submit all terminations for review and approval by a committee called the Employment Termination Oversight Committee (“ETOC”). (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 43; Aff. of Judee Williams (“Williams Aff.”) ¶¶ 2–3.) The ETOC consisted of PSM's Senior Vice President of Human Resources, several human resources specialists from locations around the country, and a PSM in-house lawyer. (Williams Aff. ¶ 2.) Its purpose was to ensure the fairness and reasonableness of all termination decisions, and to ensure that there was no appearance of bias—whether based on gender, race, or age—in termination decisions. ( Id. ¶¶ 2–3.)

In anticipation of the upcoming VRIF/RIF, Fishkill HR personnel prepared a proposed ETOC sheet, dated July 22, 2005, to obtain advice on rankings and proposed RIF selections. ( Id. ¶ 5.) In the document, several bottom-ranked employees, including Plaintiff, had a “RIF” designation next to their names.⁴ ( Id.; id. Ex. A.) Fishkill HR personnel subsequently discussed this document with two ETOC members, Judee Williams and Susan Mustacchio, to obtain their feedback. ( Id. ¶ 6; DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. J.) Williams and Mustacchio advised HR that there were several issues with the document, particularly that the rankings were not, in many cases, supported by the employees' most recent performance reviews. (Williams Aff. ¶ 6.; Dep. of Michelle Bibeault) (“Bibeault Dep.” 166:5–17.) To illustrate the point further, Williams prepared a document, “ETOC 101,” that explained the inconsistencies associated with the ETOC document and advised that termination decisions based on least seniority, rather than ranking, were more likely to pass muster. (Williams Aff. ¶ 7; id. Ex. B.) Bibeault, who was providing HR advice to Fishkill management, prepared a powerpoint presentation entitled “Pre–ETOC—22 July 2005,” which also highlighted the misalignment between the new rankings and the employees' performance reviews, and recommended the implementation of a VRIF, followed by a RIF based on seniority. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 53; DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. J.)

The VRIF program was offered between August 3 and August 17, 2005, with a uniform script used to inform all employees of its availability. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 58–60; DeGuiseppe Aff. Exs. K, L; Arienzo Dep. 331:6–21.) However, around the same time, scripts were being circulated among managers at the Fishkill facility that would notify employees of their performance rankings (bottom, middle, or top). (Felsenfeld Decl. Exs. V, W, Y.) These scripts were tailored for the different ranking levels, and at least one of the managers, Susan Mustacchio, expressed her hope that they would “encourage the right employees to consider the VRIF.” (DeGuiseppe Aff. Ex. M.) Therefore, although a uniform script was used to announce the availability of the VRIF to all employees, the Parties dispute the effect, if any, the near-simultaneous “Rating and Ranking Feedback” scripts had on employees' decisions whether take the VRIF. ( Id.; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 58.) A...