Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank

• Decision Date: 17 September 2021
• Docket Number: 20-CV-00249-YGR
• Parties: Daniel Wong, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Daniel Wong, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant.

No. 20-CV-00249-YGR

United States District Court, N.D. California

September 17, 2021

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AS MOOT

RE: DKT. NOS. 42, 45

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers United States District Court Judge

Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed this employment action on December 11, 2019, in San Francisco Superior Court, bringing claims for wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Currently pending are plaintiff's motion for a continuance of all case-related dates and defendant's motion for summary judgment. After the case was removed, the Court held an initial case management conference on July 27 2020, setting the fact discovery deadline for January 29, 2021. On March 26, 2021, defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Having carefully considered the parties' submissions as well as the oral arguments advanced at the May 4, 2021 hearing, the Court Grants the motion for summary judgment and Denies as Moot the motion for continuance.

I. Background

In January 2016, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., hired plaintiff Daniel Wong as an analytic consultant within the bank's Enterprise Regulatory and Basel Reporting (“ERBR”) Group. (Deposition of Daniel Wong (“Pl. Dep.”), Dkt. No. 50, 48:20-25, 55:21-56:4, 58:13-24.) Plaintiff was 54 years old at the time. (Id. at 56:23-57:3.) Plaintiff was responsible for tracking and managing data quality issues. (Id. at 58:6-12.) Plaintiff “possess[es] over 20 years [of] experience in various analytical roles” and “hold[s] Masters of Science degrees in Industrial Administration and Computer Engineering . . . and a Chartered Financial Analyst certification.” (Declaration of Daniel Wong (“Pl. Decl.”), Dkt. No. 48 at 21, ¶ 4.) With respect to his work performance, “[a]lthough severely resource constrained and handicapped, [plaintiff] still managed to complete the tasks at hand - albeit with some deficiencies - with continuous strides toward efficiency and improvement. Nowhere in [his] performance evaluation accounts for these facts. However, as a testament to [his] contributions, [plaintiff] was awarded a merit increase and was also paid [his] targeted bonus for [his] efforts.” (Id. ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff initially reported to Sunil Padture for a few months before reporting to his second-level manager, Sean Stone, through the end of 2016 and into early 2017. (Pl. Dep. 56:16-18, 59:21-60:17.) Stone oversaw the ERBR Group's Data and Collection Management Team, which housed the Data Issues Management Team on which plaintiff worked. (Declaration of Diana Aquino (“Aquino Decl.”), Dkt. No. 45-3, ¶ 3.) In early 2017, plaintiff reported to Prabalika Goswami, who took over leadership of the Data Issues Management Team. (Pl. Dep. 67:14-21, 68:10-12.) Thus, plaintiff reported to Goswami, who was overseen by Stone.

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that he had “reluctantly accepted” his assignment to Goswami's supervision “despite Ms. Sheng Wang, a former direct report of Ms. Goswami, ha[ving] negative experiences with this manager, including bullying, constant belittling, threatening comments, and isolation. Ms. Wang, with the aid of senior management, was transferred to another area within regulatory reporting not managed by Ms. Goswami upon her complaint. The Plaintiff observed these facts by his close working proximity to Ms. Wang.” (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-1, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff testified that his allegations regarding Goswami's negative treatment of Wang are based on “just the chatter that [he] hear[s] in the department, the gossip, as well as, . . . [his] observations when [he is] in a meeting . . . .” (Pl. Dep. 69:21-70:8.) While Wang “never told [him] in words” about the alleged negative treatment, ” he “could see her expression, ” such as “shaking her head” or “making a face in disgust . . . when she thought no one else was looking.” (Id. at 72:11-73:13, 146:20-25.)

Wang avers that she “did not work on the same projects as Mr. Wong and [ ] had little interaction with him, but [they] attended some of the same meetings and his cubicle was on the same floor as [hers].” (Declaration of Sheng Wang, Dkt. No. 45-4, ¶ 2.) Wang further stated that “[d]uring the time [she] worked with Ms. Goswami, [she] had a good working relationship with her. Ms Goswami treated [her] well. [Wang] never raised any concerns about Ms. Goswami to anyone at [Well Fargo] and [she] did not discuss Ms. Goswami with Mr. Wong. [Wang] never felt that Ms. Goswami treated [her] negatively or retaliated against [her].” (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not dispute Wang's testimony. (Plaintiff Response to Defendant Issue 6, Facts 5 and 6, Dkt. No. 49 (“Fact not in dispute. Ms. Wang's statement is a matter of an opinion from an active employee and needs to be regarded as such.”).)

Around the time Goswami took over the Data Issues Management Team, plaintiff applied for a higher-level analytic consultant position on the team (Job Requisition No. 5322169). (Declaration of Melissa Henry (“Henry Decl.”), Dkt. No. 45-5, ¶ 3.)^[1] Recruiter Melissa Henry avers that 31 candidates applied for the opening. (Id.) “Upon reviewing the background and qualifications of the 31 applicants, [Henry] determined the four best qualified candidates for a screening interview. Mr. Wong was not one of those four candidates as his application materials evidenced little background and experience in the area of regulatory risk at a financial services company, which was a key requirement for the open role, whereas other applicants' materials evidenced significantly more such experience.” (Id..; Plaintiff's Resp. to Defendant's Issue 2, Fact 3, Dkt. No. 49 (“Fact undisputed. This is the opinion of an active employee. . . .”).) Henry states that she did not know the ages of the applicants, including that of plaintiff. (Henry Decl. ¶ 3; Pl. Resp. to Def. Issue 2, Fact 4 (“Fact undisputed.”).) Simon Kember, an apparently younger candidate, was hired for the opening.^[2]

On August 1, 2017, plaintiff “had a phone conversation with [Stone] complaining about [Goswami's] biased and unfair treatment (discriminatory) and isolation (harassment)” directed toward plaintiff. (Pl. Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff testified that he told Stone: “I felt that I wasn't fairly treated, I was isolated in the department. I felt that basically there were like two DIIRFs [Data Issues Identification and Remediation Framework] - DIIRF teams, a legacy DIIRF and then the DIIRF that Ms. Goswami was running.” (Pl. Dep. 187:20-188:1.) “I told him that I wasn't happy. . . . I wasn't getting what I needed to get - get the job done. . . . [B]asically I was being isolated from, you know, any kind of information that really matters in terms of me doing my job well. I told . . . him that I felt that I wasn't being treated fairly by Ms. Goswami[.] . . .” (Id. at 188:15-22.) “Fearing retaliation, [plaintiff] asked Mr. Stone to keep [their] conversation private, but Mr. Stone replied that he needed to speak with Ms[.] Goswami since she was [plaintiff's] supervisor.” (Id.)

Meanwhile, plaintiff learned from LinkedIn that on September 15, 2017, defendant hired Sujit Nimbalker, an H1-B visa holder, “as an analytical consultant in an identical functional role” as him. (Pl. Decl. ¶ 6.)^[3] Plaintiff did not apply for the position. (Pl. Resp. to Def. Issue 4, Fact 2 (“Fact not in dispute.”).) One month later, on October 17, Stone notified plaintiff that his position had been eliminated and that he would be displaced in 60 days if he did not find another internal or external position. (Pl. Dep. 105:18-106:17.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that around June 2017, the ERBR Group “started a reorganization process to effect cost savings in large part by relocating offshore certain of its repetitive, transactional activities and eliminating domestic positions that primarily performed such activities. [Seventeen] positions ultimately were eliminated in the ERBR Group.” (Aquino Decl. ¶ 2; Pl. Resp. to Def. Issue 6, Fact 2 (“Fact not in dispute.”).) The business case reorganization or reduction in force was initiated on August 16, 2017, and approved on September 5, 2017. (Aquino Decl., Ex. A.) At this time, the Data Issues Management Team had four members, including plaintiff, all of whom were analytic consultants. (Id. ¶ 5.) As they “performed the same general functions, . . . in the go-forward structure, there were to be three” analytic consultants. (Id.) “[T]o determine which three of the four existing four team members would remain in the go-forward positions reporting to Ms. Goswami, ” team members were rated on the following job competencies: “(1) attention to detail, (2) achievement/effort, (3) decision making, (4) dependability, and (5) developing and maintaining relationships.” (Id. ¶ 6.)

“[T]he two raters, Mr. Stone and Ms. Goswami, independently rated each team member on each of those competencies on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Mr. Stone's average rating across the five competencies for Mr. Wong was 2, and was lowest of the four team members. Ms. Goswami's average rating across the five competencies for Mr. Wong also was 2 and also was lowest of the four team members. Mr. Wong's overall average rating was 2, while the other three team members' overall average ratings were 3.9, 4.3., and 4.5. The five competencies were weighted 16% each for a total of 80% of the team members' final rating. The other 20% was based on their length of employment at [Wells Fargo Bank]. As Mr. Wong had the lowest final rating, his position was eliminated.” (Id.) These facts are “not in dispute, ” but “[t]he ratings failed to account for severely constrained resources...