Stovall v. Align Tech.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:18-cv-07540-EJD |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | KRISTAN STOVALL, Plaintiff, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: DKT. NO. 56
Plaintiff Kristan Stovall (“Plaintiff”) is a former employee of Defendant Align Technology, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Align”). Plaintiff asserts claims for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and California Government Code section 12940 (“FEHA”); age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and FEHA; retaliation in violation of Title VII; and wrongful termination in violation of California Government Code section 12940. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”). Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (“Mot.”). Dkt. No. 56. Plaintiff filed an Opposition, Dkt. No. 57, and Defendant filed a Reply, Dkt. No. 70. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Defendant's motion.
Defendant is a medical device company that develops, manufactures markets and sells the Invisalign system, which uses clear aligners to reposition teeth. Invisalign is used by Orthodontists and General Practitioners (“GPs”). To prescribe Invisalign, doctors pay Align $1, 995 for Certification to learn the benefits of Invisalign and for continuing support, including support from a Territory Manager (“TM”).
Plaintiff served as a TM for Defendant in the Nashville, Tennessee sales territory (“Territory”) from May of 2013 until July 10, 2018, when she was terminated. During the period at issue, Plaintiff's Regional Manager (“RM”) was Spencer Richardson (“Richardson”). Richardson, in turn, reported to the Area Sales Director (“ASD”), Kent Braud (“Braud”).
Defendant evaluates TMs such as Plaintiff based on the “What” (also referred to as the “Numbers”) and the “How” (also referred to the “Values”). The “What” relates to sales targets, which are set by Defendant's Sales Analytics team. Defendant uses three metrics to measure sales: (1) ClinCheck Acceptance (“CCA”), which refers to a doctor submitting an Invisalign case; (2) GP CCA; and (3) Net Receipts. The “How” relates to required sales activities, including but not limited to engaging with accounts in the territory, logging sales calls in Defendant's customer relationship management (“CRM”) software, organizing and driving attendance to Clinical Education (“CE”) events, meeting with Invisalign providers, and actively participating in Regional and Area initiatives. Defendant weighs the “What” and the “How” equally.[1] To ensure TM engagement, Defendant requires TMs to make a minimum number of calls per day[2] and to log their calls in CRM. Defendant also expects TMs to have face-to-face contact with customers, such as lunch meetings, for which TMs are reimbursed. Defendant also expects TMs to “co-travel” with an RM to scheduled appointments and drop-ins occasionally.
In 2015, Plaintiff was honored in the Presidents Club for being one of Defendant's top 15 sale representatives out of 280 nationwide, and she made the “100% Achievers Club” every year between 2014 and 2017. In April 2017, Plaintiff began a three-month maternity leave. Defendant assigned a female employee, Kim Harkins (“Harkins”), to cover Plaintiff's territory during her maternity leave.
Plaintiff returned to work on July 7, 2017. On August 1 and 2, 2017, Plaintiff had her first co-travel days with Richardson. Plaintiff advised Richardson that she would need to go home to nurse her infant because her infant had a fever and would not take a bottle. According to Plaintiff, Richardson responded, Opp'n at 8. Richardson denies making this comment and denies being upset by the change in schedule. Plaintiff reported Richardson's alleged comment to her former boss, Russell Whorton (“Whorton”), who called Richardson to tell him Plaintiff was concerned about his conduct.
Plaintiff contends that after the August 2017 co-travel, Richardson began demanding more of Plaintiff than her five male co-workers. Among other things, Richardson allegedly required her to (1) attend two (out of three or four) weekend events, even though she did not have any clients attending; (2) create an Excel spreadsheet; (3) report lunch meetings to him; (4) send follow-up emails to doctors' officers after her visits; and (5) provide him with summaries of office meetings.[3]
After Plaintiff did not attend two training events-one in September of 2017 and another in December 2017-Richardson informed Human Resources (“HR”) that he was concerned about Plaintiff's performance. Richardson also had concerns about Plaintiff's call logs, expense reports, and customer complaints.
In January of 2018, Richardson attended a meeting with Heartland Dental (“Heartland”), Align's largest customer. Plaintiff's territory had a least 30 Heartland offices, which was over 50% of Plaintiff's GP business. At the meeting, several members of Heartland's leadership team expressed dissatisfaction with the level of support being provided by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff took disability leave from April 20, 2018, through May 5, 2018, due to a broken foot. While Plaintiff was on disability leave, Braud learned that Plaintiff had not responded to an email request to set up co-travel doctors' visits for Align's CEO. Decl. of J. Joseph Wall, Jr (“Wall Decl.”), Dkt. No. 62, Ex. D, Dep. of Kent Braud (“Braud Dep., ”), Ex. 4. This prompted Braud to email Defendant's HR business partner, Will Ayala (“Ayala”), a list of performance issues with Plaintiff. Id. Braud told Ayala he wanted to discuss “next steps” and to “move [Plaintiff] out if possible given the potential of the Nashville territory not being realized and [Plaintiff] showing no drive to do anything but the minimum requirements.” Id.
Upon her return, on May 7, 2018, Richardson told Plaintiff that he had received negative feedback from three Heartland doctors. On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff emailed an Align HR Manager, Amanda Le, regarding Richardson, but did not receive a response. On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff called HR and left a message asking how to file a complaint against Richardson, but did not receive a response.
On May 15, 2018, Richardson told Plaintiff she would be placed on a 30-day Personal Improvement Plan (“PIP”) for the rest of Q2 because of her (1) low sales numbers, (2) customer complaints, and (3) failure to perform duties. Ayala and Braud approved placing Plaintiff on a PIP. Braud concluded that Plaintiff was routinely near the bottom in meeting Align's expectations regarding sales call activity, call reach, values, agility, and accountability. The PIP required the following: achieving 95% or above in CCA[4], 100% in GP CCA and 100% in Net Receipts; placing a minimum of six calls per day; submitting a Q2 business plan; sending follow up emails; submitting a call and appointment schedule to Richardson every week; participating in bi-weekly one-on-one calls with Richardson to review performance metrics; and submitting expenses by the end of the month. Some of these PIP expectations (e.g., six calls per day and developing business plans) were the same for all TMs.
According to Richardson, while Plaintiff was on the PIP, she failed to visit accounts; failed to return calls; lacked passion; gave a presentation that was poorly prepared, poorly delivered and lacked substance; deflected blame; and lacked confidence. Defendant also concluded that Plaintiff had failed to fulfill sales goals.
On May 18, 2018, three days after being placed on the PIP, Plaintiff informed Ayala that she wanted to file a complaint against Richardson. She told Ayala that she had an “issue” Richardson's conduct during the co-travel nine months earlier. Bellafronto Decl., Dkt. No. 56-1, Ex. A, Stovall Dep. at 224:7-9; 225:9-17.
On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff texted Heather N. that she had spoken to her attorney, who advised her to let Align fire her so that she could pursue a wrongful termination claim.
On June 19, 2018, Ayala emailed Plaintiff the results of the HR investigation. Ayala explained that he was unable to conclude that there was a violation of Company policy related to Plaintiff's claim of discrimination. Nevertheless, the Company committed to providing Richardson coaching regarding effective communication with subordinates to avoid confusion.
On July 10, 2018, Defendant terminated Plaintiff for failure to meet the PIP. Plaintiff was forty (40) years old at the time of her termination and was replaced by a female in her early twenties.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may grant summary judgment only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Upon such a showing, the court may grant summary judgment on all or part of the claim. See id.
To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show that there are no triable issues of material fact as to matters upon which it has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). On issues where the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party needs to show only that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Id.
To defeat a summary judgment motion, the non-moving party may not merely rely on its pleadings or on conclusory statements. Id. at 324. Nor may the non-moving party merely attack or discredit the moving party's evidence. See Nat'l Union...
To continue reading
Request your trial