Stovall v. Align Technology, Inc.

Background

Kristan Stovall was a former Align Technology, Inc. territory manager for the Nashville, Tennessee sales territory. Align terminated her employment on July 10, 2018, after placing her on a 30-day Personal Improvement Plan, or PIP. The PIP required specified sales results and work activities, including sales calls, follow-up emails, business planning, performance meetings, and expense submissions.

Stovall asserted claims for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA; age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and FEHA; retaliation under Title VII; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Align moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Discrimination claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases. It held that Stovall could not establish a required initial showing that she performed her job satisfactorily before the PIP and while on the PIP, or that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

The court found a factual dispute about some of Stovall’s sales performance before the PIP, including evidence from her 2017 performance review and certain 2018 sales figures. But it found undisputed evidence that she did not meet several “How” requirements before the PIP, including logging calls and mileage, maintaining account activity, and avoiding customer complaints. While on the PIP, Stovall acknowledged that she did not meet the required sales quotas. The court concluded that this prevented her from making the required initial showing for her discrimination claims.

The court separately held that Stovall’s male coworkers did not have sufficiently similar performance problems. The record did not show that they had comparable customer complaints or failed to log calls and mileage to the same extent. For age discrimination, the court also found that the proposed comparators either were not under 40, had no evidence of age in the record, or did not have similar performance problems.

The court further ruled that Align had identified legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for placing Stovall on the PIP and terminating her, including sales results, work-activity deficiencies, and customer complaints. It found Stovall’s evidence of pretext—the claim that the stated reasons were a cover for discrimination—insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial. The court considered her sales figures, evidence about Align’s treatment of women, alleged selective enforcement of goals, alleged manipulation of metrics, comments regarding women and working mothers, and Align’s refusal to identify some complainants, but found that the evidence did not meet the required standard.

FEHA claims

The court also granted summary judgment on Stovall’s FEHA sex- and age-discrimination claims for an additional reason. It stated that Stovall resided and worked outside California and that the evidence showed the California-based human-resources employee, Ayala, did not place her on the PIP or make the termination decision. The court found that Ayala’s involvement was limited to human-resources responsibilities and concluded that FEHA did not apply because there was no evidence that Ayala committed wrongful conduct in California.

Retaliation

Stovall alleged that Align retaliated against her for taking lactation breaks and reporting Richardson’s conduct. The court assumed, without deciding, that her May 11 email and May 14 call to human resources were protected activity and found that their timing created an issue about a possible causal connection to the PIP. It also stated that her May 18 complaint to human resources was protected activity. Nevertheless, the court held that Stovall could not show that retaliatory motive was the necessary cause of the PIP or termination because Align had legitimate business reasons for both actions.

Wrongful termination and punitive damages

Because the discrimination and retaliation claims failed, the court held that Stovall’s wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim also failed. The court did not decide the parties’ arguments about punitive damages because no claim survived summary judgment.

Disposition

The court granted Align’s motion for summary judgment as to all claims.