Perdomo v. TK Elevator Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 8:21-cv-1174-VMC-CPT |
| Parties | IRMA PERDOMO, Plaintiff, v. TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION a/k/a THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION a/k/a THYSSEN ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before me on referral are Defendant TK Elevator Corporation's (TKE) motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31), Plaintiff Irma Perdomo's response in opposition (Doc. 39), and TKE's reply (Doc. 45). After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, as well as the parties' supplemental briefing on the matter (Docs. 57, 58), I respectfully recommend that TKE's motion be granted.
TKE is a provider of elevator sales and services to entities and businesses in the United States. (Docs. 15 at ¶ 7; 24 at ¶ 7). Perdomo was previously employed by TKE during the period between 2014 and 2019. (Docs. 31-2 at 59:4-5; 31-4 at ¶ 11).
Perdomo began her tenure at TKE as an administrative assistant in the company's Tampa office. (Doc. 31-2 at 59:1-24). In July 2016, Perdomo became a Regional Service Coordinator for TKE's MAX Project, which was focused on improving the ride efficiency of TKE's elevators. (Docs. 31-2 at 65:3-67:15, 94:10-18; 31-3 at ¶ 3; 31-4 at ¶ 3). At a basic level, the MAX program centered around deploying a particular device-known as a MAX device or MAX unit-to alert technicians to operational problems with the elevators. (Docs. 31-2 at 94:10-18; 31-3 at ¶ 3; 31-4 at ¶ 3). TKE began installing MAX devices in elevators throughout the country in 2016. (Doc. 31-4 at ¶ 7).
Perdomo's role as a Regional Service Coordinator involved “coordinat[ing] basic service operations” for forty of TKE's branches and “follow[ing] up on the service calls for [those] branches,” which Perdomo considered to be “basic stuff” with “no managerial responsibilities.” (Doc. 31-2 at 67:16-25 68:23-69:6). Perdomo was designated to assist branches in the east region, while two other female TKE employees -Elisa Higham and Sheree Brown-were assigned to the west and central regions, respectively. (Doc. 31-2 at 29:22-30:3, 31:5-12).
As part of her position, Perdomo communicated installation numbers and other directions to the branches in her region. (Doc 31-2 at 53:11-54:1). Perdomo received these instructions from the Max program's Lead Project Manager, Richard Gibson, who worked in California. (Doc. 31-2 at 43:3-5, 41:15-18).
Gibson helped start the MAX Project and supervised it on a national level. (Doc. 31-2 at 45:3-14, 55:14-16).[1]Before joining the MAX project, Gibson earned a Master of Business Administration (MBA) and then spent fifteen years serving in a variety of managerial and supervisory positions at TKE across a wide range of departments. (Docs. 31-2 at 42:12-13; 31-5).
As the Lead Project Manager, Gibson oversaw the forecast, purchase, and distribution of over 80,000 MAX devices, which cost more than $20,000,000. (Docs. 31-2 at 41:13-18; 31-3 at ¶ 4). In connection with those duties, Gibson was responsible for, among other things, working with an overseas production company to place orders; tracking shipments from the overseas supplier and expediting their importation into the country when necessary to meet demand; managing the Qualified Unit List (which identified elevators in the United States that could accept a MAX device) and setting benchmarks for the product; working with TKE's engineering team to resolve technical issues and to provide progress summaries to executive leadership; managing the MAX mailing project, which involved a large-scale communication effort directed at MAX compatible customers; and interfacing with the MAX information technology systems (ITS) and TKE's suppliers to address defective devices and other quality issues when such problems arose. (Doc. 31-3 at ¶ 4). Gibson also assigned MAX devices to individual regions after their delivery to the United States. Id.
Gibson left TKE in or around the late spring of 2017. (Doc. 31-2 at 72:24; 314, ¶ 4). In mid-June 2017, TKE evaluated the status of the personnel associated with the installation of the MAX devices and determined that Brown would replace Gibson as the Installation Project Manager. (Doc. 31-4 at ¶ 4).
Consistent with this decision, the Vice President of TKE's U.S. Service Operations, Gary Losey, informed an HR representative in an email during this time frame that Brown would “take over [Gibson's] responsibilities until the end of August” 2017 and that the MAX Platform Manager, Robert Amthor, would be sending a “requisition for [a] future MAX” Project Manager (PM). (Doc. 31-4 at ¶ 4; 39-9 at 1). TKE's June 2017 summary of the “MAX Platform Status” similarly stated that “Brown [would be] replacing [ ] Gibson as Install PM.” (Doc. 31-4 at 8). This summary also noted that “Higham and [Perdomo] [were] continuing to provide PM support in the regions” but that their positions would be eliminated in fiscal year “17/18” (i.e., 2017/2018) (Doc. 31-4 at 8). In early August 2017, Brown was offered the position of MAX Project Coordinator working out of a TKE office in Texas. (Doc. 39-10).
TKE purports that, as of Gibson's resignation, most of the functions he performed as part of the MAX Project were either completed or absorbed by other employees, including Amthor and Brown. (Doc. 31-3 at ¶ 5). Perdomo maintains, however, that she took over all of Gibson's duties in September 2017, along with those previously handled by Higham and Brown. (Doc. 31-2 at 72:19-73:7; 39-3 at ¶¶ 5, 6). Perdomo also testified in her deposition that she received the unofficial title of National Project Manager from Losey around this period. (Doc. 31-2 at 72:19-73:10).
In a declaration filed in response to the instant motion, Perdomo described her new responsibilities on the MAX Project as ordering MAX devices for all three regions of the United States; communicating with branches within those regions and setting their forecasts; monitoring MAX units and arranging for mechanics to reconnect those units that went “offline;” ordering and tracking MAX devices on a “national” level; and working with the engineering department and ITS to resolve technical issues that the branches were having with the units. (Doc. 39-3 at ¶ 5). Perdomo also attests in her declaration that she calculated branch installation numbers, assessed the program's progress on a weekly basis, and distributed forecasted numbers to branches. (Doc. 393 at ¶ 9). Perdomo further avers in her declaration that these responsibilities required her to review the major installation numbers TKE executives wanted completed and determine the installation figures for each branch based on both the manpower available (i.e., the mechanics in each branch) and the elevator units capable of accepting a MAX device. (Doc. 39-3 at ¶ 10). Perdomo additionally claims that she collected mass data from ITS and used it to prepare executive updates and e-mails with predictions, forecasts, and progress reports for each branch either on a monthly basis or upon the request of a Senior Vice President at TKE, Greg Bottom. (Doc. 39-3 at ¶ 11).
In April 2018, TKE changed Perdomo's title to “Project Manager 1” and her status to that of an “exempt” employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). (Docs. 31-2 at 85:17-23; 39-3 at ¶ 8). Under TKE's classification system during the relevant period, project managers were assigned one of four levels, with Level 1 being paid the least amount of money. (Doc. 31-5 at ¶¶ 3, 4). By way of example, Perdomo's salary as a Project Manager Level 1 was between $47,000 and $52,000 (Docs. 31-2 at 88:7-12; 39-11),[2]while that of Gibson-who left TKE as a Project Manager Level 4- was around $118,000 (Docs. 31-5 at ¶ 4; 46-1 at 76:14-20).[3]
According to TKE, the factors that could impact an employee's pay included the employee's education (depending upon the requirements for the job at issue), level of experience, tenure with the company, time within the position, performance, and geographic location. (Doc. 31-5 at ¶ 6). TKE also capped promotion-based pay rate increases, such that when an employee was elevated to a higher pay grade, the increase in the employee's pay generally could not exceed 20% of the employee's base pay from his or her prior position. Id. at ¶ 8. TKE, however, would allow a larger graduated increase in limited circumstances provided it was approved by the company's compensation department. Id.
After Gibson left, Perdomo testified in her deposition that she met with Losey “on several occasions [to] ask him why [her] pay wasn't reflecting that [she] was a project manager or reflecting [her] duties.” (Doc. 31-2 at 101:3-5). In her declaration, Perdomo asserts that “[o]nce [TKE] changed [her] title,” she inquired of Losey why her pay did not conform to her job title and if she was “being paid less because [she was] a female,” to which Losey responded “HR is working on that, it's a long process.” (Doc. 39-3 at ¶ 12). Perdomo also avers in her declaration that she asked Losey “for [her] pay to match [her] job duties as Project Manager around August/September of 2017, then two more times after that between October 2017 and August 2018.” (Doc. 39-3 at ¶ 2). According to Perdomo's declaration, Losey's response was again that “HR is working on it.” Id.
Perdomo additionally testified in her deposition and attests again in her declaration that in late 2017, Bottom moved her workstation from an enclosed office to a cubicle and gave her office to a male employee who was a “new hire.” (Docs. 312 at 227:3-228:15; 39-3 at ¶ 3). Another TKE employee testified, however, that this change in Perdomo's workstation was part of a “restructur[ing] of some kind,” which...
To continue reading
Request your trial