United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
BAIDEHI L. MUKHERJEE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CHILDREN'S MERCY HOSPITAL, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION (1) GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN
PART, AND DEFERRING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
ORTRIE
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Pending
is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. #70. For
the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted in
part and denied in part, and the Court defers ruling in part.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Baidehi L. Mukherjee is a woman of Indian national origin and
Asian descent. Plaintiff began working for Defendant The
Children's Mercy Hospital on July 9, 2012, as Director of
Technology Development. Her starting biweekly pay rate was
$6, 154.40. Defendant also paid Plaintiff $16, 000 in
relocation assistance, and paid more than $14, 000 to
transfer Plaintiff's work authorization to Defendant. In
her position, Plaintiff was responsible for activities that
promoted and facilitated the commercialization of inventions
arising out of professional activities by Defendant's
personnel. She communicated with inventors and intellectual
property law attorneys regarding inventions, and facilitated
communications between them. Plaintiff also negotiated
license agreements and other related agreements to promote
commercialization of newly discovered technologies.
In
August 2013, Plaintiff received her first performance
evaluation from her supervisor, Warren Dudley, then-Vice
President of Market Development and Outreach. Dudley wrote,
among other things, for the Technology Development Office
“to grow and add the most value to CMH, it will be very
important for Luna to develop positive relationships both
within CMH and with the supporting external groups.”
Doc. #71-16, at 5. He further stated, “[t]here are
indications that Luna and her communications are not being
perceived by others in the way that Luna intends. It will be
important for Luna to work with our H[uman] R[esources] team
to identify courses offered internally or possibly externally
that can support the development of communication
skills.” Id.
On
January 24, 2014, Plaintiff received a written warning.
Therein, Dudley indicated, among other things, Plaintiff,
contrary to his instructions, was not copying him on
communications to potential licensing partners or on monthly
updates with a researcher. Doc. #71-18. He stated Plaintiff
refused to follow directions and work on certain projects.
Plaintiff was advised that failure to show “immediate,
significant, and sustained improvement” could result in
further counseling up to and including termination.
On
February 3, 2014, Plaintiff submitted an Employee Complaint
Report to Defendant's Human Resources Department.
Plaintiff stated, among other things, her supervisor lodged
false allegations against her, he “target[ed]”
her because she is a “highly talented minority of a
different national origin, ” he was “verbally
abusive, ” and “created a hostile work
environment.” Doc. #71-20, at 3-3. She stated her
supervisor “wrongly [sic] set idea as to the role of
women, and foreign born persons. There has always been an
underlying current of bigotry but I had hoped that over
time…he would learn to appreciate talented individuals
like me.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff asked for a
change of manager, or that she be allowed to work on her own.
According to Defendant, Plaintiff's complaint was
investigated, and the investigation uncovered insufficient
evidence to suggest unfair or inequitable treatment of
Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the investigatory findings. She
was informed by the Executive Vice President and the Vice
President of Human Resources that the written warning was an
appropriate measure, and Plaintiff was treated fairly and in
a manner consistent with Defendant's policy.
On
April 4, 2014, Dudley gave Plaintiff a final written warning.
According to Dudley, Plaintiff continued to refuse to do
things, she did not provide monthly updates to him, did not
complete development courses, did not provide the required
amount of education and sharing necessary for her position,
and her communication skills had not improved. Dudley
directed Plaintiff to provide a written development plan of
how she planned to achieve progress related to her
communication skills and repairing relationships. Dudley also
required Plaintiff to provide certain lists, reports, and
summaries to him. Plaintiff was instructed to organize an
educational seminar for Defendant's employees to increase
understanding and knowledge of intellectual property and
technology transfer. She was informed that failure to follow
the plan for improvement would result in further counseling
up to and including termination.
On
April 14, 2014, Plaintiff submitted another Employee
Complaint Report. Her complaint was for
“discrimination, harassment, retaliation, hostile work
environment, tarnishing my reputation, making false
allegations, causing professional and personal harm.”
Doc. #71-28, at 2. Plaintiff averred she was working
“in a hostile work environment and I am being attacked
wrongfully [for] being a female minority foreign born
professional.” Id. She claimed Dudley had
become “extremely aggressive and vindictive
towards” her in that he banged on her door, towered
over her, refused to make eye contact, and was verbally
abusive. According to Defendant, Plaintiff's complaint
was investigated, and the investigation uncovered no evidence
to support her claim of unfair or unequitable treatment.
According to Defendant, Plaintiff failed to meet performance
expectations, and the final written warning would remain in
her file. Plaintiff appealed the investigatory findings. She
was informed by the Executive Vice President and the Vice
President of Human Resources that the final written warning
was an appropriate measure, and Plaintiff was treated fairly
and in a manner consistent with Defendant's policy.
According
to Defendant, it chose to discharge Plaintiff because she
failed to develop collaborative relationships with
researchers, failed to comply with multiple directives from
Dudley over the course of several months, and failed to make
immediate, significant, and sustained improvement in the
areas identified in the written warnings. Plaintiff's
employment with Defendant concluded on May 7, 2014.
On May
17, 2014, Plaintiff submitted another Employee Complaint
Report. Plaintiff's complaint was for
“discrimination, wrongful termination of employment,
harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment, making
false allegations, professional and personal harm.”
Doc. #71-30, at 1. According to Defendant, Plaintiff's
complaint was investigated. At the conclusion of the
investigation, Plaintiff was informed her “refusal to
meet the expectations set by your manager ultimately led to
your termination. As such, your termination will
stand.” Doc. #71-32. Plaintiff appealed the
investigatory findings. She was informed by the Executive
Vice President and the Vice President of Human Resources that
her discharge was an appropriate measure, and she was treated
fairly and in a manner consistent with Defendant's
policy.
In
December 2016, Plaintiff initiated this matter. In her First
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated
against her on the basis of her race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, and ancestry under the Missouri Human Rights
Act (“MHRA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(“Section 1981”). Doc. #4. Plaintiff also
maintains Defendant created a hostile work environment on the
basis of her race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and
ancestry under the MHRA, Title VII, and Section 1981. She
contends Defendant retaliated against her, in violation of
the MHRA, Title VII, and Section 1981, for exercising her
rights under state and federal discrimination laws. Plaintiff
alleges Defendant willfully violated the Equal Pay Act of
1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Finally, Plaintiff maintains
Defendant defamed her and appropriated her privacy and
publicity. On February 13, 2018, the parties stipulated to
the dismissal of Plaintiff's defamation and religious
discrimination claims with prejudice. Doc. #84. Defendant now
seeks summary judgment on all remaining claims.
II.
STANDARD
A
moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only
if there is a showing that “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” Williams v. City
of St. Louis, 783 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir. 1986).
“[W]hile the materiality determination rests on the
substantive law, it is the substantive law's
identification of which facts are critical and which facts
are irrelevant that governs.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus,
“[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Wierman v.
Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir.
2011) (quotation omitted). The Court must view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving
that party the benefit of all inferences that may be
reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 588-89
(1986); Tyler v. Harper, 744 F.2d 653, 655 ...