Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; February 14, 2018; Federal District Court
In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff Joyce Elaine Hanan claims her former employer, J.J. Haines Co., Inc., discriminated against her based on age by assigning her to a less desirable sales territory, leading to a constructive termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court is currently considering the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Key facts include that Hanan, who worked as an outside sales representative for Allied Products since 1985, was hired by Defendant in January 2013 at age seventy-nine after Defendant acquired Allied. Hanan maintained her position in the same territory, classified as part-time, typically working over forty hours per week and earning approximately $28,000 annually, with additional commission opportunities.
In 2014, after acquiring CMH Space, Defendant restructured sales territories due to overlaps. During this restructuring, Vice President Reitz expressed concerns about Hanan's employment status but ultimately decided to keep her part-time in her territory, influenced by input from Robert Davidson, a former Allied executive. The restructuring affected four representatives, aged 47, 50, 61, and 67, while two positions were eliminated for representatives aged 62 and 65. The court relied on uncontested facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party in its decision to grant the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
On August 6, 2014, Reitz and Wells, representing the Defendant, offered Plaintiff a full-time sales position with a base salary of $1,666.67 per month, an $850 monthly expense allowance, and commission based on a projected monthly gross margin of $32,334. The offer included eligibility for various employee benefits. During the meeting, the position was described as a "great, wonderful offer," but Reitz later suggested Plaintiff consider retirement. On August 22, 2016, HR manager Charles Conkling confirmed Plaintiff's value to the company and followed up on the job offer. After consulting with Davidson, who warned her about the challenges of developing a new sales territory, Plaintiff rejected the offer and left the company on September 30, 2014, citing concerns about lower income and reluctance to build new customer relationships. Subsequently, Defendant hired John Maiellano, who earned $65,637.58 in his first ten months. Plaintiff did not seek employment in 2015, 2016, or 2017, applying to only four jobs in late 2014, one of which she turned down.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 4, 2016, alleging age discrimination regarding the sales territory assignment and wrongful termination after rejecting the new position. Defendant responded on December 27, 2016, and after discovery concluded, filed a motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2017. Plaintiff received extensions to respond and submitted her opposition by November 3, 2017. Defendant replied on November 16, 2017. The legal standard for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires showing no genuine dispute exists regarding material facts, which could affect the outcome of the case.
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, courts must favor the non-moving party and draw reasonable inferences in their favor. The moving party must first demonstrate that no disputed material fact exists. Once this burden is met, the non-moving party must present specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial, rather than relying solely on the allegations in the complaint. Summary judgment is warranted if the non-moving party fails to establish an essential element of their case. In this context, the defendant seeks summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not constructively discharged under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when offered a new position. The plaintiff claims age discrimination, asserting that her age was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision, which violates the ADEA. To prove age discrimination, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case involving four elements: being over forty, qualification for the position, suffering an adverse employment action, and being replaced by a younger employee. It is agreed that the plaintiff meets the first three criteria. The dispute centers on whether the plaintiff experienced an adverse employment action when offered a new sales territory and compensation structure, which she contends she reasonably refused due to her extensive experience in the field.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to experience the new working conditions undermines her claims regarding the intolerability of the changes to her sales territory and compensation, which she believes would result in lower earnings. Defendant contends that no reasonable fact finder could deem these changes objectively intolerable. Even if the changes constitute an adverse employment action, Defendant maintains compliance with the ADEA, as the restructuring affected all account executives in Plaintiff's division.
In assessing constructive discharge, the Third Circuit employs an objective standard, focusing on whether conditions were so adverse that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, rather than relying on the employee’s subjective perception. Courts recognize various objective factors indicative of constructive discharge, and precedent in the Third Circuit suggests that changes in job responsibilities alone do not substantiate such a claim.
Plaintiff was offered a full-time role with a higher base salary and potentially better commission terms, as part of the division's overall restructuring, which included changes in sales territory. Notably, she was encouraged to accept this position by multiple individuals. Her belief that she might earn less and her reluctance to develop new territory do not meet the threshold for objective unpleasantness that would compel resignation. Furthermore, there is no evidence of coercion from Defendant, aside from a single comment regarding retirement.
As a result, the court concludes there is insufficient evidence to support a claim of constructive discharge or an adverse employment action, leading to the granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Consequently, any alternative arguments regarding Plaintiff's potential recovery of damages are rendered moot. The court acknowledges Plaintiff's failure to adequately respond to Defendant's motion but will consider her opposition brief and exhibits when appropriate. Additionally, facts surrounding Plaintiff's contractual obligations and employment status, including her age at hire, are noted.
