Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:17-cv-497
• Citation: 455 F.Supp.3d 481
• Parties: Melanie PELCHA, Plaintiff, v. MW BANCORP, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

455 F.Supp.3d 481

Melanie PELCHA, Plaintiff,

v.MW BANCORP, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-497

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Signed April 17, 2020

Donald Bernard Hordes, Ritter & Randolph LLC, Paul Plotsker, Law Office of Paul Plotsker, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Robin D. Miller, Ulmer & Berne, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DOUGLAS R. COLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause is before the Court pursuant to Defendants MW Bancorp Inc.’s and Watch Hill Bank's motions for summary judgment in this age discrimination action. (Docs. 46, 47). This Court held oral argument on those motions on January 28, 2020. From the briefing and argument, it is clear that the parties have divergent views as to why the Plaintiff, Ms. Pelcha, was terminated from her position at the bank. The question before the Court, though, is whether those divergent views give rise to a genuine dispute of material fact that requires jury resolution. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court concludes that they do not, and thus GRANTS Defendant Watch Hill Bank's Motion (Doc. 46), GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant MW Bancorp's Motion (Doc. 47), and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the claims against both Defendants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a claim by Plaintiff Melanie Pelcha ("Pelcha") against her former employer, Watch Hill Bank ("Watch Hill"), and its holding company, MW Bancorp Inc. ("MW Bancorp"), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Although there are several aspects to Pelcha's claim, all of them stem from her employment with Watch Hill. Pelcha began working at Watch Hill in August 2005 as a teller at the Mount Washington branch (Dep. of Melanie Pelcha ("Pelcha Dep."), 20–22, Doc. 46-2, #524–25¹ ; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp'n to Watch Hill's Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.’s Opp'n to WHB"), Doc. 50, #832² ). Pelcha was an at-will employee, meaning she did not work pursuant to a contract and could be terminated at any time and for any reason, but not of course for an impermissible discriminatory reason. (Pelcha Dep. at 22, #525). Although she began as a teller, she held several different job titles during her eleven-year tenure with Watch Hill. (Pelcha Dep. at 22–23, #525). She described herself "as an above-average worker with good reviews and lack of prior discipline." (Pl.’s Resp. to Interrog. No. 12, Doc. 46-6, #594). Pelcha worked under several different managers during her years of employment.

(Pelcha Dep. at 21, #525). Most recently, before the events at issue here, she had reported to Janet Schneider, Watch Hill's former Senior Vice President of Deposit Operations. (Pl.’s Opp'n to WHB at #832).

A. Brenda Sonderman Takes Over as Pelcha's Supervisor.

Pelcha's reporting relationship changed in May of 2016. At that time, Brenda Sonderman ("Sonderman") replaced Schneider as Pelcha's supervisor. (Id. at #833; Pelcha Dep. at 25–28, 67–69, #526, 532). Pelcha and Sonderman did not get along. (Pelcha Dep. at 21, #525). Pelcha immediately had reservations about Sonderman as a supervisor. For example, she questioned Sonderman's knowledge of banking systems. (Id. at 48–49, #528). Pelcha also questioned Sonderman's qualifications to be manager (particularly in light of the fact that Pelcha had worked at Watch Hill longer), though Pelcha says she does not believe she was wrongfully passed over for the manager position. (Id. at 47–49, #528).

Possibly her most significant reservation, though, was that Sonderman exercised "more authority" than previous managers. (Id. at 47, #528). Pelcha particularly disliked Sonderman's policy requiring her direct reports to submit a written request seeking permission to take time off. (Id. at 27, 66–68, #526, 532). In the past, under Schneider, employees would just send an email request. (Id. at 69, #532). This new policy required employees under Sonderman's supervision to request leave for "vacation, sick leave, or even partial day absences for doctor's visits and other personal appointments." (Pl.’s Opp'n to WHB at #834). All requests had to be submitted in writing "by mid-month of the requested time off" (i.e. the middle of the month prior to the month in which leave was requested) so each request could "be taken into consideration when the schedule is originated." (Sonderman Dep. Ex. 4, #538). The articulated purpose of this written leave request form was so that Sonderman could effectively schedule employees. (Sonderman Dep. at 161, #909). Sonderman instituted this policy on or about May 19, 2016, and notified her employees via email. (Id. at 163, #910; Pelcha Dep. at 66–68, #532).

Pelcha was undoubtedly aware of this policy at the time the facts relevant here occurred. This is so because, prior to that time, she had retroactively abided by the policy once before. After Pelcha took a pre-scheduled vacation in early June 2016, roughly a month after Sonderman began her role as supervisor, the form became an issue. Sonderman knew Pelcha "always took this time in June," but requested that Pelcha nonetheless complete a retroactive leave form upon her return. (Sonderman Dep. at 162, #910; Pelcha Dep. at 69–70, #532–33). Pelcha did so, which she recalled as not "being an issue." (Pelcha Dep. at 70, #533).

Then, just a few weeks later, in early-July 2016, Pelcha planned to take a few hours off work in the middle of the day to take her son to a dentist's appointment. (Pelcha Dep. at 77, #534). Under Sonderman's policy, Pelcha was required to fill out a written request in advance seeking that time off, even though she was only planning on missing a few hours of work. (Sonderman Dep. at 163, #910). Pelcha claims that, although she did not prepare a written request, about a week prior to the scheduled appointment, she orally sought Sonderman's approval for leave, which she maintains that Sonderman gave. (Pelcha Dep. at 77, #534). For her part, Sonderman concedes she was aware that Pelcha was planning to take the time off. (Sonderman Dep. at 159, #909).

B. Watch Hill Decides To Terminate Pelcha After A Dispute Relating To Leave She Took In July 2016.

A conflict between Pelcha and Sonderman regarding this July 2016 leave is what ultimately set in motion Pelcha's termination from Watch Hill. Pelcha, believing she had Sonderman's oral approval, "bridled at the notion of having to fill out a written request as well and told Ms. Sonderman that she did not intend to do so." (Pl.’s Opp'n to WHB at #834).

The day before the dental appointment, July 7, 2016, Pelcha told Sonderman that she spoke with Joe Vortkamp, a Watch Hill vice president, and inquired whether she was required to follow Sonderman's leave policy. (Sonderman Dep. at 154–55, #543). Instead of answering, Vortkamp instructed Pelcha to check the employee handbook. (Pl.’s Opp'n to WHB at #834). Pelcha did so and concluded that she was not required to follow Sonderman's policy. (Id. at #834). She told Sonderman as much: "I'm not filling [the request] out because I don't have to." (Sonderman Dep. at 154–55, #543). But despite having disclaimed the intent to do so, Pelcha did in fact fill out the leave form and placed it in Sonderman's office that night before she left work. (Id. at 153–55, 163–64, #908–10). This day-before written notice, though, was well after the deadline that Sonderman's policy imposed.

That same afternoon, Sonderman approached Vortkamp to complain about his interference with her oversight of the employees she managed. (Sonderman Dep. at 156, 159, #543, 909) After that discussion, Vortkamp decided to call Gregory Niesen ("Niesen"), then-President and CEO of Watch Hill, that same evening. (Sonderman Dep. at 157–58, #908–09 (recounting her conversation with Niesen about his call with Vortkamp)). During that call, Vortkamp informed Niesen about Pelcha's inquiry and apologized for his potential overstep of involving himself "in a personnel issue." (Sonderman Dep. at 157–58, #543–44). Vortkamp did not tell Pelcha about this call, but there is no dispute that Niesen was aware of Pelcha's actions as a result of it.

The next day, Friday, July 8, 2016, Niesen, Sonderman, and other senior managers attended a regularly-scheduled meeting of the senior management team at Watch Hill's Columbia-Tusculum branch. (Sonderman Dep. at 157–58, #908–09; Niesen Dep. at 22–23, 98, #565, #865). During that meeting, Niesen specifically raised Vortkamp's phone call from the night before and Pelcha's refusal to complete the leave request form. (Sonderman Dep. at 157–58, #908–09; Niesen Dep. at 22–23, #865). Niesen observed that he had zero tolerance for insubordination, and sought additional details. Sonderman clarified various facts about the incident, specifically that she "had asked [Pelcha] to do something[,] and she refused." (Sonderman Dep. at 158, #909; Niesen Dep. at 61, #564). Niesen reiterated his zero-tolerance policy and informed those present at the meeting that he intended to terminate Pelcha's employment. (Niesen Dep. at 100–04, #869–70). No one at the meeting indicated disagreement with that course of action. (Id. at 109, #871). Niesen also asked Sonderman to provide him a written record of the events involving Pelcha. (Id. ).

After the meeting, Niesen informally consulted with his former boss Dave Tedtman³ who convinced Niesen to meet with Pelcha "to hold sort of an official meeting with [her] to listen to her side of the story regarding Brenda Sonderman's issues related to her employment." (Niesen Dep. at 145–46, #878). So, the following Monday, July 11, 2016, Niesen and another Watch Hill vice president met with Pelcha at the Mount Washington branch to discuss the issue and get her side of the story. (Id. at 144–45, #878; Pelcha Dep. at 57, #529). Sonderman was out of the office that day, and so did not attend. (Sonderman Dep. at 166, #911). Indeed, she states she was unaware that a meeting was going to occur that day, and was upset that it had occurred in her...