Reid v. Wrought Washer Mfg.

• Docket Number: 20-cv-1406-pp
• Decision Date: 07 November 2024
• Parties: ELIZABETH REID, Plaintiff, v. WROUGHT WASHER MANUFACTURING, INC. Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

1

ELIZABETH REID, Plaintiff, v. WROUGHT WASHER MANUFACTURING, INC.Defendant.

No. 20-cv-1406-pp

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

November 7, 2024

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(DKT. NO. 29) AND DISMISSING CASE

HON PAMELA PEPPER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On September 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that her former employer had violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA).Dkt. No. 3.The plaintiff alleges the defendant(1) interfered with her FMLA rights in violation of 29 U.S.C. §2615(a)(1) and (2) retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA rights in violation of 29 U.S.C. §2615(a)(2).Id. at ¶¶32-39.On January 18, 2023, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgement arguing that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that it did not violate the FMLA. Dkt. No. 30.

On August 7, 2024, the court held a hearing, seeking clarification of several facts.Dkt.No 47.On September 5 2024, the court held a follow-up hearing where the parties provided responses to the court's questions.Dkt. No. 48.

The court will grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismiss the case.

I.Facts

A.The Plaintiff's Position and Pre-FMLA Request Performance

The defendant is a manufacturing company headquartered in downtown Milwaukee; it supplies high-quality washers for a broad range of markets including automotive, agricultural, electrical, appliance, construction equipment and material handling.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶¶1-2.The plaintiff originally was hired by Franklin Tool & Die (a company owned by the defendant) on February 2, 1997 as its assistant operations manager.Id.at ¶3.The plaintiff then became employed by the defendant in 1997 or 1998, when the defendant consolidated the Franklin Tool & Die operations into its own Milwaukee plant.Id. at ¶4.The plaintiff held various positions while employed with the defendant, including quotations analyst, quotations manager and outside sales positions such as territory sales manager and sales manager.Id.at ¶5.

In 2016, Jeff Liter became the defendant's president.Id.at ¶6.At that time, the plaintiff worked for the defendant as sales manager.Id.at ¶7.Liter had serious questions about the plaintiff's outside sales ability, specifically the way the plaintiff interacted with customers, which the plaintiff says was immaterial to the decision to terminate her years later.Id. at ¶8.The plaintiff testified in her deposition that she and Liter had a “not great” but “productive” working relationship.Id.at ¶11(quotingDkt. No. 32at 9(Tr.p. 37 at lines 12-19)).Liter eventually replaced the plaintiff with Kent Carter and moved the plaintiff to the position of territory sales manager.Id.at ¶9.Later, the defendant transitioned the plaintiff out of sales altogether and moved her into product development at the defendant's Milwaukee office, where she reported to Carter.Id.at ¶10.

In approximately December 2018, the defendant made the plaintiff a “New Product Development Manager.”Id.at ¶12;see alsoDkt.No. 32-1at 4(Tr.p. 12 at lines 17-22).The plaintiff retained that salaried position until her termination in July 2020.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶12.Because the plaintiff was a salaried employee, Carter expected her to work “typically 50, sometimes 60” hours a week.Dkt.No. 32-2at 7(Tr.p. 19 at lines 2-8).

As a new product development manager, the plaintiff was the quoting supervisor responsible for responding to requests for quotations (“RFQs”) from the defendant's customers or potential customers.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶13.Liter testified in his deposition that the plaintiff had another “fairly new hire” working on RFQs and that the plaintiff was responsible for assigning the RFQs that “she didn't do” herself.Id.;see alsoDkt.No. 32-4at 8, 10(Tr.p. 24 at lines 8-13, p. 32 at lines 11-13).RFQs are formal requests from the defendant's customers for the defendant to state whether it can manufacture a product, at what price and under what conditions Dkt. No. 37 at ¶14.Effective and timely responses to RFQs are essential to the defendant's business.Id.at ¶15.RFQ responses are usually competitive exercises, in which other companies-the defendant's competitors-are asked to respond to the same RFQs.Id. at ¶16.When issuing an RFQ, the customer sets a deadline for a response.Id. at ¶18.

To be in the best possible position to win the business from this competitive exercise, it is critical that the defendant respond to RFQs in a timely manner with competitive, yet achievable, pricing and terms.Id.at ¶17.Effectively responding to the RFQ's is not a “last-minute” task.Id.at ¶19.Preparing the RFQs requires planning ahead to gather information within the defendant's systems-such as ascertaining manufacturing capabilities, capacity and what machinery is available to perform the requested manufacturing project.Id.at ¶20.Preparation of RFQs also takes planning ahead to gather information from the customer issuing the RFQ because frequently there are questions that must be asked of the customer and information that must be gathered from the customer.Id.at ¶21.Generally, the defendant's customers do not appreciate answering questions at the last minute before an RFQ deadline and expect companies-like the defendant-to give them lead time as to any information necessary to respond to the RFQ.Id. at ¶22.For these reasons, the plaintiff's ability to timely act on RFQs was an essential component of her job and, as the defendant's lead person on RFQ responses, the defendant relied on the plaintiff to timely and effectively act on RFQs.Id. at ¶23.

The plaintiff admits that as far back as December 2018, Liter would get “angry periodically or frustrated” with the plaintiff“regarding quotes not done when he wanted them.”Dkt.No. 32-1at 9(Tr.p. 31 at lines 7-25, p. 32 at lines 1-17).Carter testified in his deposition that he had “great concern that [the plaintiff] was not able to maintain the responsibilities that she was tasked with” and conveyed that to her several times.Dkt.No. 32-2at 7(Tr.p. 20 at lines 1-22).The plaintiff insists that this was immaterial to her ultimate termination because Carter never warned the plaintiff, under the company's progressive discipline policy, that her job was in jeopardy.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶27.

In February 2019, Carter gave the plaintiff a “Verbal Warning”-which is documented in writing-about her work issues.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶24;see alsoDkt.No. 32-5.At the time of the verbal warning, Carter noted that seven specific quotes “need[ed] to be completed ASAP.”Dkt. No. 37 at ¶26;see alsoDkt.No. 32-5.Carter maintains that he did not take that verbal warning into consideration when he made the later decision to discharge the plaintiff.Dkt.No. 32-2at 10(Tr.p. 31 at lines 13-17).

In April 2019, Liter and Carter met with the plaintiff to discuss their concerns with her job.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶30.The conversation did not include HR, and the plaintiff testified in her deposition that the meeting was “contentious” and that she believed that there were “many falsities pointed out to [her]” during that conversation.Dkt.No. 32-1at 10(Tr.p. 34 at lines 22-25, p. 35 at lines 1-18).

Starting in January 2020, the defendant had internal discussions about terminating the plaintiff based on her performance issues.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶31;see alsoDkt.No. 32-4at 6(Tr.p. 14 at lines 23-25, p. 15 at lines 1-25, p. 16 at lines 1-8).The plaintiff asserts that this fact is immaterial because no one warned her that her job was in jeopardy or discussed her attendance with her “during 2019 or 2020 until she had to take FMLA leave[.]”Dkt. No. 37 at ¶31.

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit and placed the defendant in a difficult financial position.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶32.As a result, the defendant began assessing needed layoffs, including the termination of unproductive employees, such as the plaintiff.Id.at ¶33.Carter testified in his deposition that he was unsure whether he would have terminated the plaintiff due to the financial problems regardless of her performance.Dkt.No. 32-2at 8(Tr.p. 22 at lines 6-9).Around March 2020, the defendant also asked employees in the plaintiff's department to take a day of furlough each week.SeeDkt. No. 36 at ¶3(citingDkt.No. 32-2at 14(Tr.p. 49 at lines 14-17));see alsoDkt.No. 32-1at 13(Tr.p. 46 at lines 11-22).

B.The Plaintiff's FMLA Requests

On April 14, 2020, the plaintiff requested FMLA leave so she could undergo an elective surgery.Dkt. No. 37 at ¶¶34-35.On May 13, 2020, the defendant approved the plaintiff's request to take leave from June 3 to July 15, 2020.Id. at ¶36.Between the date the plaintiff requested FMLA leave (April 14, 2020) and the date the defendant approved the request (May 13, 2020), the defendant never threatened the plaintiff with termination or other adverse employment actions.Id.at ¶37;see alsoDkt.No. 32-1at 19(Tr.p. 70 at lines 1-25, p. 71 at lines 1-4).

The plaintiff testified that during this period she had or overheard three interactions reflecting Liter and Carter were “upset”she was taking FMLA.^[1]Dkt. No. 36 at ¶4;see alsoDkt.No. 32-1 at 14-17 (Tr.p. 53-65).First, the plaintiff testified that Carter mistakenly had told her that she had to take one to two weeks of vacation before using FMLA; the plaintiff corrected him based on what Denise Schuppert, the Human Resources Manager, had told her.Dkt.No. 32-1at 16(Tr. p. 58 at lines 4-19).Second, the plaintiff testified that Liter had approached her desk with a question about something and then commented, “I can't believe you're going to be gone.”Id. at 16-17(Tr.p. 59 at lines 7-21, p. 63...