Randolph v. ADT Sec. Serv. Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. DKC 09-1790 |
| Parties | SHARON RANDOLPH, et al. v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson and Defendant ADT Security Services, Inc. ("ADT"). (ECF Nos. 48, 50). Also pending are several motions to seal certain exhibits that were filed in connection with the parties' cross-motions. (ECF Nos. 50, 54, 59). The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, both motions for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part. The motions to seal will all be granted.
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are uncontroverted.
On December 1, 2008, Randolph and Thompson began working at the Lanham, Maryland office of ADT, a security company. ADT hired the two as Residential Resale Representatives, a position in which they sold ADT products and services to individuals. ADT required them to meet a certain sales quota each week, and both plaintiffs were paid on a commission-only basis after some initial weeks of training wages. This commission-based plan was explained in the offer letters that they received and the compensation plan they were given when they started work. Plaintiffs were at-will employees.
When Plaintiffs joined ADT, they each received copies of the ADT Team Member Handbook (the "Handbook") and a Tyco Guide to Ethical Conduct ("Guide to Ethical Conduct").1 Among other things, these company publications stressed the private and confidential nature of protected customer information (and the company's own proprietary business information):
Customers and suppliers entrust us with sensitive information[.] . . . In addition, much of the information you obtain while employed by us is propriety business information that must not be disclosed. Therefore, your employment imposes an obligation on you to maintain confidentiality, even after you leave ADT.
. The Handbook specifically instructs that employees should not discuss any business or confidential information with anyone outside ADT. It provides some examples of confidential information and directs employees to ask their supervisors about disclosing information. The Guide to Ethical Conduct similarly stressed that customer and employee data was only to be disseminated for business purposes and in accordance with the law.
Some time after receiving their first paycheck from ADT, Plaintiffs became unhappy with their pay and began to voice complaints. In particular, Plaintiffs were concerned that they were (1) not receiving promised bonuses for exceeding their sales quotas and (2) facing unexpected commission reductions based on customer cancellations.2 These concerns led Plaintiffs to complain to ADT residential resale manager Chancey Manwiller and area sales manager Robin McVey. Both Manwiller and McVey concluded that Plaintiffs simply had a good faith misunderstanding of their compensation plan.
Apparently unhappy with the response they received from ADT, Plaintiffs decided to contact the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation ("DLLR"). While riding in acar with Randolph, Thompson called the DLLR to discuss their compensation concerns. The DLLR responded by sending Plaintiffs a blank wage claim form to complete. The form instructed Plaintiffs to fill out the form and provide documentation supporting their claims, including, for example, "an employment contract, wage agreement, commission statements, invoices, time records, list of hours worked, check stubs, written fringe benefit . . . policy or contract." (ECF No. 48, Ex. J, at ADT 220). The bottom of the form further emphasized the importance of documentation, stating:
If your claim pertains to company paid benefits (ex: vacation), and/or you worked under a written contract, please attach a photocopy of all relevant documents. If documentation is not available, you must attach a complete explanation of the policy and/or contract. Please attach any other relevant documentation which could assist in proving your claim.
(Id. (emphasis in original)).
Plaintiffs each completed a wage claim form and gathered a number of documents to send to the DLLR to support their claims. Among other things, Plaintiffs submitted copies of their compensation plan, pay stubs and commission statements, company handbooks, company sales reports, and individual residential service contracts with clients. The documents establish what products and services Plaintiffs sold, what payments they werepromised from ADT, what hours they worked, and what payments they actually received. Yet the service contracts also contained a variety of personal information about ADT customers, including customer names, addresses, phone numbers, and payment information. Some of the submitted information also indicated what services ADT customers had obtained and spelled out specific information about those services (e.g., where alarm panels were located, alarm passwords, etc.).3 Randolph also sent the DLLR copies of PowerPoint slides detailing an ADT "reactivation" program that ADT characterizes as proprietary. Neither Thompson nor Randolph asked for permission from their customers or supervisors before disclosing the above information to the DLLR, but they were entitled to maintain the documents for their own records.
The DLLR received Plaintiffs' materials on March 25, 2009.4 A few days later, on either April 2 or April 3, 2009, the DLLR notified ADT that Plaintiffs had submitted wage claims and sent the company copies of the claim forms (and all supporting documentation). After ADT Human Resources coordinator RobertaMcCarten received the submissions, she contacted Manwiller about them. Manwiller then spoke to McVey, Area Human Resources Manager Theresa Maia, and Human Resources director Angela Bloomfield. The company also consulted counsel.
ADT decided to suspend Randolph and Thompson pending an investigation, ostensibly for violating the company's confidentiality policy. Later, in two letters from Manwiller dated April 10, 2009, ADT terminated Plaintiffs. According to the letter, ADT's investigation determined that Plaintiffs had "violated company policy" by (1) breaching "confidentiality agreements that [were] in [ADT's] compensation plans for sales representatives"; (2) disclosing "customers' personal data" to a third party; and (3) disclosing "company confidential information to a third party." (See, e.g., ECF No. 48, Ex. B, at ADT 1).5
Plaintiffs filed their complaint against ADT on July 21, 2009. (ECF No. 1). The complaint contained two counts: a claim under the FLSA and a claim asserting wrongful termination "under the Maryland public policy exception to at-willemployment."6 (Id. ¶¶ 39-52). Roughly two months later, on August 26, 2009, ADT filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (ECF Nos. 6, 9). Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 12), but ADT asked that its previous motion to dismiss be applied to the amended complaint (ECF No. 14). After receiving full briefing from the parties, the court denied ADT's motion to dismiss on March 23, 2010. (ECF Nos. 23, 24).
After discovery was largely completed, ADT moved for summary judgment on October 8, 2010. (ECF No. 48). In response, Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, while reserving the issue of damages. (ECF No. 52). ADT then filed a concurrent reply (on its own motion) and opposition (on Plaintiffs' cross-motion) on November 12, 2010. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 24, 2010, which they supplemented with additional authority on December 3, 2010. (ECF Nos. 60, 61). In connection with the briefing on the summary judgment motions, both parties submitted motions to seal certain exhibits submitted with their memoranda. (ECF Nos. 50, 54, 59).
A court may enter summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is inappropriate if any material factual issue "may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Washington Sports Ventures, Inc. , 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001).
"A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,' but rather must 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc. , 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). "A mere scintilla of proof . . . will not suffice to prevent summary judgment." Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 314 (4th Cir. 2003). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50. (citations omitted). At the same time, the court mustconstrue the facts that are presented in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007); Emmett, 532 F.3d at 297.
When faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, the court must consider "each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law." Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court reviews each motion under the familiar standard outlined...
To continue reading
Request your trial