Stefanini v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Background

Vicki Stefanini worked in sales at Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company for about one and a half years. After Hewlett Packard acquired Aruba Wireless Networks and reorganized its sales teams, Stefanini was assigned to sell both Hewlett Packard and Aruba products. Her manager, Stephen Carlock, required sales forecasts and specified ratios of prospective sales opportunities.

In February 2016, Carlock contacted his manager about starting the process of terminating Stefanini. Human Resources recommended a written warning and performance improvement plan. Carlock issued those documents in April 2016, citing performance concerns including Stefanini’s focus on Hewlett Packard products, failure to attend Aruba-product training, low quota achievement, insufficient prospective sales, and the loss of a large sales opportunity. Stefanini disputed the performance assessment and attributed problems with her sales records and commissions to HPE’s MyComp system.

In May 2016, Stefanini complained to Dominic Orr, the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Aruba, that Carlock was treating her differently because she belonged to a protected class. Human Resources investigated and concluded that the complaint had no substance. Around the same time, HPE began a company-wide workforce reduction. Carlock ranked Stefanini among the two lowest performers on his team. Stefanini later requested and received medical leave running from July 18 through October 9, 2016. HPE informed her on October 17 that she was being laid off, and her last day was October 28, 2016.

Claims and procedural history

Stefanini’s complaint asserted twelve claims: gender discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; failure to prevent gender discrimination; wrongful termination; retaliation for exercising California Family Rights Act rights; interference with Family and Medical Leave Act rights; retaliation; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; failure to pay agreed-upon wages; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.

At the hearing on HPE’s summary-judgment motion, Stefanini confirmed that she intended to voluntarily dismiss the business-expense claim. The court also dismissed the failure-to-prevent-discrimination and implied-covenant claims as duplicative because they were based on the same law and facts as the discrimination and contract claims. The order therefore addressed the other nine claims.

Summary-judgment standard and evidence

Summary judgment is proper when admissible evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a material fact—a fact that could affect the outcome—and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the admissible evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

The court found that some materials Stefanini submitted were not admissible evidence, including questions she asked during depositions and exhibits she created for the litigation. These included a timeline of her complaints about MyComp and lists of commissions she believed were unpaid. The court considered Robert Oliver’s declaration, finding that HPE’s objections went to the declaration’s weight rather than its admissibility.

Gender discrimination and wrongful termination

For the gender-discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Stefanini had to make an initial showing that she was part of a protected class, qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and faced circumstances suggesting a discriminatory motive. The court found that she showed she was female and was terminated, but did not provide sufficient admissible evidence that she was qualified or that her termination suggested gender discrimination.

Stefanini relied primarily on her own testimony that she was achieving 300 percent of quota and outperforming her peers. The court said that no documents supported that figure, while HPE submitted the written warning, performance improvement plan, and later emails documenting performance concerns. The court granted HPE’s motion for summary judgment on the gender-discrimination claim and dismissed the failure-to-prevent-discrimination claim as duplicative. Because Stefanini’s wrongful-termination claim was based on the same allegations and evidence as her discrimination claim, the court also granted summary judgment on that claim.

Retaliation for taking medical leave

For her California Family Rights Act retaliation claim, Stefanini had to show, among other things, that she was terminated because she took protected leave and that there was a causal connection between the leave and termination. The court noted that the parties did not dispute her eligibility for leave, her taking leave, or her termination. It nevertheless found no sufficient causal connection because the termination process began before Stefanini requested or took leave: Carlock had discussed terminating her in February, issued the warning and performance plan in April, and ranked her for the workforce reduction on May 23, before learning of her leave request on May 24. The court granted summary judgment on this claim.

Interference with family-leave rights

To establish interference with Family and Medical Leave Act rights, Stefanini had to show that HPE denied her benefits to which she was entitled. The court found that HPE granted the medical leave she requested and that Stefanini did not identify any other FMLA benefit that HPE denied. The court granted summary judgment on the FMLA-interference claim.

Other retaliation claim

Stefanini alleged that she engaged in protected activity by complaining about perceived gender discrimination to HPE. The court found that the termination process had begun before her May 5, 2016 complaint. It therefore concluded that she had not shown a connection between the complaint and her termination and granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Wages and contract claims

Stefanini alleged that HPE failed to pay commissions she earned. The court found that her submissions did not establish the amount of commissions allegedly owed or show that MyComp problems caused HPE not to pay them. The court noted that HPE acknowledged general delays in MyComp’s posting of sales data, but found that this did not establish that Stefanini personally had unpaid commissions. HPE submitted a compensation report indicating that Stefanini received all sales credits owed to her but was below quota and therefore was not entitled to additional payments. The court granted summary judgment on the claims for agreed-upon wages and wages due upon termination.

The court also granted summary judgment on Stefanini’s breach-of-contract claim. It found that she was an at-will employee and therefore could not bring a breach-of-contract claim based on her termination. Her contract claim also relied on the unpaid-wages allegations, which lacked sufficient admissible evidence. The court dismissed the implied-covenant claim as duplicative and further stated that without evidence of a contract there could be no related implied covenant.

Unfair competition and disposition

Stefanini’s claim under California’s unfair-competition law was based on her gender-discrimination and wrongful-termination claims. Because the court granted summary judgment on those underlying claims, it also granted summary judgment on the unfair-competition claim.

The court found no genuine dispute of material fact based on the admissible evidence, granted HPE’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.