Eva-Pia Reich v. Schering Plough Corp , 399 F. App'x 762 ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-4228
EVA-PIA REICH,
Appellant
v.
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2-07-cv-01508)
District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 25, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 29, 2010)
OPINION
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Dr. Eva-Pia Reich, Ph.D appeals from the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Schering-Plough Corp, on Reich’s
claims of age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1. We will affirm.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
In June 1999, Schering hired Reich, then fifty-five years old, as a Principal
Scientist. She initially worked under the supervision of Dr. Paul Zadovny and focused on
in-vivo (living) experiments. In her performance reviews, Zadovny gave Reich positive
ratings in the categories of “Cross-Functional Teamwork” and the subcategories under
“Leadership.” Zadovny, however, was not trained as an in-vivo biologist.
In early 2003, Schering raised its performance expectations, but continued to use
the cross-functional teamwork and leadership categories as performance benchmarks.
About a year later, Dr. Jay Fine replaced Zadovny as Reich’s supervisor. At the time
Reich was assigned to Fine’s group in 2004, Reich was fifty-nine years old and Fine was
forty-two.
In Reich’s 2004 mid-year review, Fine suggested Reich could improve in the areas
of cross-functional teamwork and scientific leadership. Unlike Zadovny, Fine was
trained as an in-vivo biologist. He rated Reich’s overall mid-year performance as “AE”
or “At Expectations,” a positive rating under the new system. App. at 588-89.
Nonetheless, Reich was disappointed because she believed that she was entitled to a
higher rating.
For her 2004 year-end review, Fine again rated Reich’s work as AE. Although
Reich did not believe Fine gave her the AE evaluations because of her age, she complains
that Fine gave her vague and unhelpful guidance. In contrast, Fine’s notes detail the
specific guidance he gave Reich with respect to communication and leadership.
In early 2005, Schering heightened its leadership expectations. In May of that
year, Fine told Reich he had attempted to have her demoted because he had too many
“senior scientists” in his work group. App. at 878. Although there were Senior Scientists
at Schering, Reich was a Principal Scientist and considered Fine’s comment to be a
remark regarding her age.
In her 2005 mid-year review, Fine gave Reich an overall rating of “BE” or “Below
Expectations,” noting she had failed to meet expectations with respect to developing
effective cross-functional relationships and demonstrating consistent scientific leadership.
In early 2006, Fine informed Reich that she was being placed on a three-month
Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”), which included the warning: “[f]ailure to take
the required action to improve your performance will result in more severe action, which
may include termination of your employment.” App. at 573.
In May 2006, Fine had his two-month PIP discussion with Reich, giving her
positive feedback on her technical performance, but again noting Reich needed to
improve her scientific leadership and communication skills. On June 1, Reich filed a
charge of age discrimination with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. When Reich
informed Human Relations that she had filed a complaint, the person to whom she spoke
stated, “oh, no, you shouldn’t have done that . . . .” App. at 886. Schering did not begin
an internal investigation until after it received a formal copy of Reich’s complaint on
June 21 from the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. On June 22, Reich gave her final
PIP presentation.
Schering terminated Reich’s employment, on Fine’s recommendation, on June 27,
2006. Reich amended her charge of age discrimination to include retaliatory discharge in
violation of the ADEA and NJLAD. The District Court granted Schering’s motion for
summary judgment on Reich’s claims, concluding that although Reich had established
prima facie cases of both age discrimination and retaliation, Schering had articulated
legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions and Reich had not sufficiently
demonstrated that those reasons were pretextual. This timely appeal followed. 1
II.
1
The District Court exercised federal question jurisdiction over Reich’s
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have appellate jurisdiction over the final
Analysis 2
We evaluate claims under the ADEA and NJLAD under the framework articulated
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), in which the burden of
production shifts between the claimant and respondent. See Smith v. City of Allentown,
589 F.3d 684, 689-90 (3d Cir. 2009) (ADEA claim); Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine,
Inc., 510 F.3d 398, 403 (3d Cir. 2007) (NJLAD claim). The burden of persuasion,
however, remains on the claimant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age
was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. Gross v. FBL Fin.
Serv., Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2352 (2009); Smith, 589 F.3d at 690-91. Reich claims the
District Court erred in concluding she had failed to meet her final burden under the
McDonnell Douglas framework to present sufficient evidence “to meaningfully throw
into question” Schering’s reasons for its actions, or “from which a factfinder could
reasonably conclude that an illegitimate factor more likely than not was a motivating or
determinative cause” of those actions. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 765 (3d Cir.
1994).
The only evidence Reich introduced regarding alleged age discrimination
decision of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Reich, we exercise plenary
review of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Schering. See Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 566 n.3 (3d
Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
consisted of a remark by Fine four or five years earlier, before he became her supervisor,
referring to a job applicant as “that old guy,” App. at 771, and his 2006 comment asking
staff members about another applicant, “Young and cute huh, ladies? What do you think
about that, you think you would like to have him in the department?” App. at 876. The
District Court concluded that Fine’s “throw-away remarks [were] too removed in time
and too de minimis to constitute direct or indirect evidence of age-based animus.” App.
at 30. See also Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 545 (3d Cir.
1992). Thus, the court concluded that “[t]aken as a whole, the evidence [Reich] has
adduced is not sufficient to permit the inference of discrimination or retaliatory
termination . . . .” App. at 30. We agree.
Reich emphasizes she offered evidence “of significant inconsistencies between Jay
Fine’s formal evaluations of [her] performance with the evaluations from her prior
supervisor, inconsistency between [Fine]’s daily feedback regarding her work and his
formal evaluations, [and] the purely subjective nature of his criticism . . . .” Appellant’s
Reply Br. at 5; see Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc., 228 F.3d 313, 321 (3d Cir.
2000) (“cloaking [subjective] criteria with an appearance of objectivity does not
immunize an employment decision”); Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765 (claimant must show
“weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in”
employer’s reasons). Schering, however, was neither inconsistent nor improperly reliant
law. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
on subjective criteria here. See Billet v. CIGNA Corp., 940 F.2d 812, 825 (3d Cir. 1991)
(“The fact that an employee disagrees with an employer’s evaluation of h[er] does not
prove pretext.”), overruled in part on other grounds, St. Mary’s Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. 502(1993).
The District Court gave careful consideration to Reich’s claims. It concluded that
Reich established a prima facie claim of discrimination, but that a reasonable jury could
conclude that Schering had a nondiscriminatory basis for terminating Reich, and that
Reich did not produce sufficient evidence of retaliation such that a reasonable juror could
find in her favor. We agree. Reich has failed to demonstrate the District Court erred.
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.