Williams v. PMA Companies, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2021
• Docket Number: 5:19-CV-0557 (GTS/ATB)
• Citation: 564 F.Supp.3d 32
• Parties: Bruce WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PMA COMPANIES, INC.; PMA Management Corp.; PMA Management Corp of New England; and James Walsh, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

564 F.Supp.3d 32

Bruce WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,

v.PMA COMPANIES, INC.; PMA Management Corp.; PMA Management Corp of New England; and James Walsh, Defendants.

5:19-CV-0557 (GTS/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed September 30, 2021

OF COUNSEL: TIMOTHY J. BROCK, ESQ., TREVOR BRICE, ESQ., BENJAMIN J. WYATT, ESQ., THE LAW OFFICES OF WYATT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Counsel for Plaintiff, 17 Elm Street Suite C211, Keene, NH 0341.

OF COUNSEL: ROBERT A. LaBERGE, ESQ., ADAM P. MASTROLEO, ESQ., BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, Counsel for Defendants, One Lincoln Center, Syracuse, NY 13202.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

Currently before the Court, in this employment discrimination action filed by Bruce Williams ("Plaintiff") against PMA Companies, Inc. ("PMA"), PMA Management Corporation ("PMAMC"), PMA Management Corporation of New England ("PMAMCNE"), and James Walsh (collectively "Defendants"), is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Dkt. No. 32.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Claims

Generally, in his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts four claims: (1) a claim that all Defendants discriminated against him based on his age in violation of New York State Human Rights Law Section 296; (2) a claim that Defendants PMA, PMAMC, and PMAMCNE (collectively "the PMA Company Defendants") discriminated against him based on his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. ; (3) a claim that all Defendants retaliated against him in violation of New York State Human Rights Law Section 296, in that the PMA Company Defendants unlawfully coerced, intimidated and threatened him, and/or interfered with his exercise of enjoyment of his rights by subjecting him to adverse actions including termination of his employment, and that Defendant Walsh aided, abetted, incited, coerced, and/or compelled such retaliatory or discriminatory conduct; and (4) a claim that the PMA Company Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. (Dkt. No. 1 [Pl.’s Compl.].)

B. Undisputed Material Facts

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with accurate citations by Defendants in their Statement of Material Facts and expressly admitted or denied without appropriate record citations by Plaintiff, in his response thereto. (Compare Dkt. No. 32, Attach. 8 [Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Statement] with Dkt. No. 44, Attach 2 [Pl.’s Rule 56.1 Resp.].)

1. PMAMC and PMAMCNE are third-party administrators which provide claims administration and risk management services for self-insured clients, unbundled clients and self-insured groups in the areas of workers’ compensation, commercial auto, commercial property, and general liability.

2. PMAMC has offices across the United States. Its largest claims office is located in DeWitt, New York, where PMAMC has more than 89 employees (the "DeWitt Office").

3. Plaintiff was hired by PMAMC in March 2003 to serve as a Client Services Manager in the claims area.

4. In May 2008, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Assistant Vice President of Claims and assumed responsibility for managing the DeWitt Office.

5. In June 2009, PMA purchased a small third-party administrator located in Wallingford, Connecticut. Shortly thereafter, PMAMCNE was formed. Plaintiff subsequently was asked to manage that office as well and received a correspondingly substantial salary increase.

6. Even after Plaintiff assumed these additional responsibilities in New England, and at all times during his employment, Plaintiff's principal work location and his primary responsibility continued to be the DeWitt Office.

7. In 2018, PMA, PMAMC and PMAMCNE had a procedure for requesting and approving work-from-home arrangements. That procedure had three steps.

8. First, an employee who wanted to work from home would initiate the request with his or her supervisor. Second, if the supervisor was supportive of the request, he or she would submit the request to Human Resources. Third, and finally, Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Facilities for PMA, Andrew McGill, would consider and approve or deny the request. This procedure required the completion of a written form that was ultimately submitted to Human Resources.

9. According to PMA's Employee Handbook, "All remote work location requests must be approved, in advance, by the Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Facilities Management."

10. Todd Jacobson, who at the relevant time was the Assistant Vice President of Claims for the Midwest region for PMAMC, did not work remotely in 2018 or at any time relevant to this lawsuit.¹

11. In 2018 and at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Michelle James was not employed by PMAMC or PMAMCNE.

12. Rather, Ms. James is employed by Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company, which is a different company than PMAMC or PMAMCNE with different leadership.

13. Ms. James was permitted to work remotely, and her home is located within the area of her responsibility.

14. Ms. James’ work-from-home arrangement was warranted based on extenuating personal circumstances.

15. Plaintiff has no firsthand knowledge of Ms. James or Linda Rice's working arrangements or the basis of those arrangements.

16. Plaintiff and his wife purchased a home in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, in June 2018. This was at the same time that Plaintiff's wife stopped working at her job as a preschool teacher in North Syracuse, New York.

17. At some point during the summer of 2018, Plaintiff asked Defendant Walsh for permission to perform at least some of his Assistant Vice President responsibilities (located in New York and New England) remotely.

18. In considering Plaintiff's request, Defendant Walsh spoke to his boss, Frank Altiere.

19. Mr. Altiere immediately informed Defendant Walsh that he was not in favor of the request, explaining his philosophy that the leaders of the organization needed to be present and visible in the office and should be able to walk around an office and meet with their teams.

20. Mr. Altiere was also concerned about PMAMC's operation in New York at that particular time due to issues with the performance of the offices under Plaintiff's control.

21. In particular, Mr. Altiere was concerned about unnecessary fines and turnover in the office, as well as about an issue in which Plaintiff was insubordinate by refusing to follow a directive from Defendant Walsh in 2017.

22. In accordance with PMA's established procedure, Defendant Walsh also spoke to Mr. McGill about Plaintiff's remote-work request.

23. Mr. McGill had the final say over whether any remote-work request would be granted.

24. Mr. McGill likewise was not in favor of Plaintiff's remote-work request.

25. Following Defendant Walsh's discussions with Mr. Altiere and Mr. McGill, Plaintiff's remote-work request was not approved.

26. On Tuesday and Wednesday, August 28 and 29, 2018, PMAMC held an off-site strategic planning meeting at Normandy Farm Hotel and Conference Center in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.

27. In attendance were most of PMAMC's senior leadership team, including Plaintiff, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Altiere.

28. On the morning of Wednesday, August 28, Plaintiff and Mr. Walsh spoke about Plaintiff's remote-work request before the start of the meeting.

29. After Plaintiff was informed that the request would not be approved, a heated discussion ensued.

30. Mr. Walsh stated that he understood from this conversation that Plaintiff was resigning his employment and providing his two weeks’ notice.²

31. Defendant Walsh immediately advised Mr. Altiere, who was also at this offsite meeting, that Plaintiff had become upset and had resigned.

32. Defendant Walsh also immediately reported this incident by telephone to PMA Human Resources Manager, Christine Kilgarriff.

33. Ms. Kilgarriff, in turn, immediately reported Plaintiff's resignation to Mr. McGill by contemporaneous email at 8:24 a.m., stating that Plaintiff "ended up quitting and said that he would work only until September 15th after learning that his remote work request was denied."

34. The next day (Wednesday, August 29), Mr. McGill spoke to Plaintiff by telephone.

35. Mr. McGill took contemporaneous notes during this conversation.

36. Mr. McGill stated that he understood from this conversation that Plaintiff was resigning his employment.³

37. Neither Mr. McGill, nor Defendant Walsh, ever told Plaintiff he was being "fired" or "terminated" during any of their discussions with him on or after August 28, 2021.

38. Mr. McGill felt that the length of Plaintiff's transition period should be kept to a minimum.

39. Mr. McGill thereafter consulted Defendant Walsh, John Santulli (President and Chief Operations Officer of the PMA Companies), Vincent Donnelly (PMA Companies’ Chief Executive Officer), and Mr. Altiere about the length of Plaintiff's transition period.

40. Mr. Santulli is 66 years old, Mr. Donnelly is 68 years old, and Mr. Altiere is 65 years old.

41. It was determined as a result of these discussions that the end date of Plaintiff's transition period would be September 21.

42. This decision was made no later than the close of business on Thursday, August 30.⁴

43. Accordingly, at Mr. McGill's request, Ms. Kilgarriff finalized and submitted human resources paperwork, confirming that Plaintiff's pay would continue through September 21, 2018, his official last day of employment.

44. On Friday, August 31, 2018, Defendant Walsh called Plaintiff to discuss the transition of his duties and to advise him of the end date of this transition period.

45. After Defendant Walsh had informed Plaintiff that September 21 would be his last day, Plaintiff stated he believed he was being treated differently because of his age.

46. Plaintiff also stated during this call that he was not "voluntarily" resigning from his position with...