Perry-Hartman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
| Decision Date | 20 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 17-cv-4732 |
| Parties | ABBY PERRY-HARTMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 37) Plaintiff's response thereto (Pl.'s Resp., ECF No 41) and Defendant's reply in support of its motion. (Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 45). For the reasons that follow Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant hired Plaintiff in 2000 as an Associate Manager in the Cash Management group of its Individual Life Insurance Service Delivery department. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 1). In 2007, she transferred to another Associate Manager position with the Manual Intervention group. (Id. at ¶ 2). In this role, she supervised a team of associates who manually performed calculations related to Defendant life insurance policies. (Id. at ¶ 3).
From October 2007 until mid-April 2015, Joanne Minor, Manager of Customer Service, supervised Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 4). In January 2014, Plaintiff emailed Minor regarding a dispute with her coworker. (Jan. 24, 2014 Email, ECF No. 41-4). The email informed Minor, apparently for the first time, of Plaintiff's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (See id.) Plaintiff avers that she also suffers from diabetes, depression and anxiety. (Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶ 8).
As Plaintiff's supervisor, Minor had responsibility for completing Plaintiff's Interim Performance Appraisal and Annual Performance Review each year. (Id. at ¶ 8; see also id. at ¶¶ 13, 17). In July and early December, prior to each review, Managers attend calibration sessions to discuss and rate the performance of the Associate Managers who report to them. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 119). The Interim Performance Appraisal covers the first six months of the year only. (See id. at ¶ 12). It does not include an overall rating, but it informs the employee where he or she “is trending” in that regard. (Id. at ¶ 10). The Annual Performance Review includes an overall rating of “Exceptional Contributor, ” “High Contributor, ” “Effective Contributor, ” “Greater Contributions are Needed” (GCN), or “Unsatisfactory Contributor.” (Id. at ¶ 9).
Throughout the period that Minor supervised Plaintiff, Minor's reviews of Plaintiff noted various issues with her behavior and performance, including her leadership, verbal communication and listening skills, and professionalism. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7). Plaintiff's 2014 Interim Performance Appraisal, provided to her in August, noted Plaintiff's unprofessional tendency to share private information, failure to filter messaging to peers and subordinates, and overall need to change her communication style. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-14). However, Minor rated Plaintiff as an Effective Contributor, or trending that way, on all reviews from 2008 through and including her 2014 Interim Performance Appraisal. (Minor Dep. Tr., ECF No. 41-4, Ex. C at 12:8-10, 24:1217).
In October 2014, Plaintiff sent Minor a letter regarding a perceived lack of support in the workplace. (Oct. 22, 2014 Ltr., ECF 41-4, at Ex. D). The letter did not mention PTSD specifically but referred to Plaintiff's “conditions, ” “declining” “personal health, ” “feeling . . . depressed, ” and “feeling so down for so long now that I have actually contemplated going out on disability.” (Id.).
Plaintiff received her 2014 Annual Performance Review in February 2015. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 16). In the review, Minor rated Plaintiff as GCN. (Id. at ¶ 17). The review identified as ongoing areas of concern Plaintiff's unprofessionalism and inconsistent leadership and noted that she had not significantly improved in these areas or with her communication skills. (Id. at ¶ 18). It warned that Defendant would place Plaintiff in performance counseling if she did not soon demonstrate significant improvement. (Id. at ¶ 19).
In mid-April 2015, Nancy Smyth replaced Minor as Plaintiff's supervisor. (Id. at ¶ 32). On April 22, 2015, Smyth held a meeting with Plaintiff and the other Associate Managers. (Id. at ¶ 43). At a coaching session later that day, Smyth told Plaintiff that she did not approve of her body language during the earlier meeting. (Id.). Plaintiff replied that she had a disability that caused uncontrollable body language responses. (Id. at ¶ 44). Smyth responded, “Well, maybe you don't belong here, maybe this isn't the job for you.” (Id.). Later in the conversation, Smyth lunged over the desk, made a gun gesture with her hand, pointed it close to Plaintiff's head and stated, “I'm not Joanne Minor, I'll give it to you straight between the eyes and you better learn how to take it.” (Id. at ¶ 45).
Plaintiff returned the following day, April 23, 2015, to inform Smyth that she did not appreciate how Smyth had spoken about her disability. (Id. at ¶ 46). During the conversation, Plaintiff told Smyth, “[I]f I talked to my people the way you talked to me, I'd be in HR in five minutes.” (Id. at ¶ 48). Smyth countered, “Well, go ahead, Abby, see where that will get you.”[1](Id.).
In July 2015, Plaintiff raised concerns about Smyth with Kimberly King, Vice President of Policyholder Administration, who relayed them to Jodi Bloch, Director of Human Resources (HR). (Id. at ¶¶ 65, 70). In subsequent communications between Bloch and Plaintiff, Plaintiff told her about Smyth's comments and the handgun gesture. (Bloch Dep. Tr., ECF No. 42, Ex. I at 67:11-68:7). Plaintiff also attempted to tell Bloch about her disability, but she informed Plaintiff that Defendant's Accommodations unit handled that information. (Id. at 42:20-23).
On July 29, 2015, Bloch and HR Manager Eve Young met with Smyth and Plaintiff to discuss how they could communicate better, exchange feedback, and improve their working relationship. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 81). The following day Plaintiff submitted a Workplace Accommodation Request to Defendant's Health and Wellness group. (Id. at ¶¶ 80, 84). The request enumerated four accommodations that Plaintiff considered necessary to carry out her job functions: (1) to work remotely three to four days per month to manage stress; (2) to have a “support person” present for one-on-one meetings with Smyth; (3) to have Smyth provide primarily written feedback; and (4) to have additional individuals besides Smyth evaluate her performance and determine her ratings and salary. (July 30, Workplace Accommodation Request, ECF No. 39, at 3). Plaintiff also wrote that she could perform her job functions if Defendant provided her with a calm, supportive and professional environment. (Id.).
On August 20, 2015, Diane Hettinger, Director of Return to Work and Accommodations, provided Defendant's response to her request. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 93). Defendant permitted Plaintiff to work remotely a few days per month. (Id. at ¶ 86). Although it refused her request to have a support person present for all individual meetings with Smyth, Young nevertheless started to attend discussions about performance evaluations between Smyth and Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 88). Young also met with Plaintiff each month. (Id.). Defendant denied Plaintiff's request to have Smyth provide mainly written feedback, even though Smyth did, at times, provide written feedback. (Id. at ¶ 90). As for Plaintiff's fourth request, that others beyond Smyth participate in her review and the determination of her ratings and compensation, HR personnel and higher management were already doing so. (Pl. Dep. Tr., ECF No. 37-4, Ex. 1 at 198:19-199:2).
Plaintiff received her 2015 Interim Performance Appraisal, completed by both Minor and Smyth, on August 21, 2015. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 95). The review identified ongoing issues regarding Plaintiff's leadership, verbal communication and listening skills, and tendency to act based on emotion. (Id. at ¶ 96).
On March 11, 2016, Plaintiff emailed Young and Smyth advising them that she had filed a dual charge with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). (Mar. 11, 2016 Email, ECF No. 41-1, Ex. N). Also on March 11, 2016, Smyth signed Plaintiff's 2015 Annual Performance Review, jointly completed by Minor and her. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 106; 2015 Annual Performance Review, ECF No. 37-6, Ex. 25). Plaintiff received the review on March 16, 2016. (Def.'s Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 37-2, at ¶ 105). Plaintiff again received a GCN rating, as in her prior annual review. (Id.). The review also noted similar issues as those raised in prior reviews. (See id. at ¶ 107). It gave examples of inappropriate and unprofessional comments she had made, including a disclosure of confidential information at the end of 2015 for which she received a formal Written Warning in February 2016. (Id. at ¶¶ 10203). The review warned that if her leadership did not improve, Defendant might terminate her. (Id. at ¶ 107).
On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a second Workplace Accommodation Request. (Id. at ¶ 108). This request cited three accommodations that Plaintiff believed would allow her to perform her job duties: (1) to continue working remotely at times to manage stress; (2) “a transfer” away from Smyth; and (3) to have no one-on-one meetings with Smyth. (May 20, 2016 Workplace Accommodation Request, ECF No. 39-1, at 5). Plaintiff also repeated her desire for “a safe, supportive working environment.” (Id.).
Defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial