Li v. Merck & Co.

Background

Nina Li worked as a scientist at Merck from 2006 through 2023. Her discrimination and retaliation claims concerned the period from July 2020 through March 2023, when Alexander Loktev supervised her. Li reported what she described as bias against her mentee, James Zhang, and later claimed that Loktev reduced her mentoring opportunities, support, resources, and participation in high-profile studies and teams.

Li received an “improvement required” evaluation at the end of 2021, reported alleged retaliation and discrimination to human-resources personnel, and requested an outside review of matters involving her evaluation and work assignments. Merck’s Office of Ethics investigated three complaints and found them unfounded. In November 2022, Loktev issued a performance-expectations memorandum that threatened termination based on alleged communication and leadership problems. Li was terminated on March 9, 2023.

Merck sought summary judgment—a ruling without a trial when no genuine dispute over an important fact exists—on several of Li’s claims and on Merck’s own claims. Li sought summary judgment on Merck’s counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract.

Race-discrimination claim

The court applied California’s burden-shifting framework for employment-discrimination claims. It concluded that Li met the initial requirement of presenting facts supporting a basic inference of discrimination because she was a member of a protected racial group, was qualified for her job, experienced adverse employment actions, and identified circumstances that could support an inference of discrimination.

Merck offered performance and mentoring concerns as nondiscriminatory reasons for Li’s poor evaluations and termination. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact remained concerning Zhang’s departure, the poor evaluations after Loktev became Li’s manager, the stated reasons for the criticism, and Li’s termination. The court therefore denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s race discrimination claim.

Retaliation claim

The court also found a genuine dispute about whether Li’s protected complaints about race discrimination were causally connected to later adverse employment actions. The disputed actions included reduced opportunities and resources, Merck’s investigation of her complaints, and her termination. The court further found that Merck had not adequately supported its asserted legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the restrictions on Li’s work exposure and resources and for her termination.

The court therefore denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s unlawful retaliation claim.

Punitive damages

The court held that punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of “despicable conduct,” meaning conduct that is base, vile, or contemptible. It found that Li had not alleged or presented evidence of conduct meeting that standard. Her allegations that Merck inadequately investigated her complaints and relied on unreliable or biased sources did not establish the required extreme conduct.

The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

Merck’s counterclaims

The court found factual disputes concerning Merck’s counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The parties’ messages were unclear about whether Li requested or received a slide deck containing trade secrets. The court also found a triable dispute concerning Li’s access to and use of Merck trade-secret information, including data she discussed after her termination and other confidential or proprietary documents she allegedly created, downloaded, printed, used, or shared.

The court therefore denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the misappropriation of trade secrets claim.

Because Merck’s breach-of-contract claim was based on Li’s suspected misuse of Merck’s trade-secret information, the court found that the same factual disputes applied. It therefore denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the breach of contract claim.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White’s conclusion states that the court denied Merck’s motion for summary judgment, granted the motion as to the claim for punitive damages, and denied Plaintiff Nina Li’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court continued the pretrial conference to March 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., and the trial to April 6, 2026, at 8:00 a.m.