Skinner v. Medivators, Inc.

Background

Medivators, Inc. produces and sells medical equipment to hospitals and surgery centers. Nancy Skinner began working for Medivators in 2006 and was one of its top sales representatives. In June 2020, Medivators announced a sales reorganization that changed the products Skinner would sell and reduced her geographic territory and customer base.

Skinner alleged that Medivators operated a “good old boys” club that discriminated against women and that the reorganization was a pretext to push her out. She also alleged harassment and retaliation, including pressure to accept the new territory or waive legal rights in exchange for severance, an instruction that management not speak with her after she complained about sex and age discrimination, failure to investigate her complaint, and failure to provide a written offer describing her final territory and compensation plan. Skinner alleged that she could no longer perform her job and resigned on August 31, 2020.

Skinner asserted eight causes of action: hostile-work-environment harassment; sex discrimination; age discrimination; retaliation; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to provide employment records under a Labor Code demand; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Medivators moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on all of those claims except the employment-records claim.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility at this stage. The evidence and reasonable inferences generally must be viewed in favor of the party opposing the motion.

Hostile-work-environment claim

The court held that a genuine dispute existed about whether Skinner experienced harassment because of her sex or age that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Medivators relied on the short duration of six calls, their occurrence over several weeks, Skinner’s admission that nothing inappropriate was said, and the lack of evidence that the calls were initiated because of her age or sex.

Skinner, however, alleged that the calls involved pressure from a person named in her discrimination complaint and that Medivators stopped communicating with her, isolating her and interfering with her ability to work. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the pressure, the call involving a person about whom Skinner had complained, and Medivators’ silence amounted to harassment. The court therefore denied Medivators’ motion as to this claim.

Sex- and age-discrimination claims

The court applied California’s three-stage burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims. It concluded that Skinner met the initial burden of showing that she was in protected groups because of her sex and age, was qualified for her position, experienced potentially adverse employment actions, and identified circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

The alleged adverse actions included losing territory and accounts, the alleged harassment and misconduct, and constructive discharge. Skinner also alleged that her territory was assigned to two men decades younger than she was, that her complaint was not investigated, and that Medivators acknowledged that her complaint led to a lack of communication with her.

The court found that Medivators met its burden to identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the changes: a sales reorganization based in part on recommendations from outside consulting firms. But the court found a genuine dispute about whether that explanation was pretextual, or a cover for discrimination. Skinner identified evidence concerning managers’ ability to set and change her territory, Medivators’ expectation that she would leave, the anticipated effect of the severance offer, and the assignment of her territory to younger men. The court denied the motion as to the sex- and age-discrimination claims.

Retaliation claim

The court also found a genuine dispute about whether Skinner established the elements of retaliation. The parties agreed that Skinner engaged in protected activity by filing an internal complaint about sex and age discrimination. They disputed whether she suffered an adverse employment action and whether there was a causal connection between her complaint and the alleged actions.

Skinner alleged that Medivators instructed supervisors not to speak with her, making it impossible for her to perform her job, and subjected her to harassing calls after her complaint. Medivators disputed those allegations and offered different explanations for the communication restrictions and timing. Because the court could not weigh the competing evidence on summary judgment, it found that a reasonable jury could find adverse treatment connected to Skinner’s complaint. The court also concluded that Medivators did not adequately meet its burden of producing evidence supporting its asserted legitimate, nonretaliatory reason. It denied the motion as to retaliation.

Derivative and related claims

Medivators argued that Skinner’s claims for failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, and discrimination; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress failed because the underlying harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims failed. The court rejected the motion because it had found genuine disputes concerning those underlying claims. The court also stated that Medivators had not provided the required legal standards or identified the absence of a genuine factual dispute for each derivative claim. It denied the motion as to all three categories of related claims.

Disposition

The court denied Medivators’ motion for partial summary judgment. It also set a case-management conference for November 4, 2022, and ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement by October 28, 2022.