Bohlinger v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Michael Bohlinger sued Abbott Laboratories Inc. under the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging age discrimination. Abbott employed Bohlinger as a sales representative for 43 years. From 2015 through 2018, he worked as a pediatric sales representative covering parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

In 2015, Abbott reorganized its pediatric sales representatives into hospital, office, and combined roles. Bohlinger was classified as a Pediatric Sales Specialist. Abbott also changed sales territories. Two of Bohlinger’s highest-decile hospitals were transferred to another representative, and Bohlinger received a territory with the lowest workload but the highest number of accounts compared with the other representatives. Bohlinger was 68 and the oldest sales representative in his district. During a meeting about the changes, his supervisor, Susan Schultz, asked how much longer he was going to be around.

By 2017, the workload in Bohlinger’s territory had fallen below Abbott’s target of 800 hours per year. His supervisor, Eric Brown, and Regional Sales Director Zariq Siddiqui considered realigning the territory. One possible solution was transferring Bohlinger to an open territory in New Jersey, where the opinion states he lived. Brown told Bohlinger that his territory was no longer viable and would not continue, and asked whether he would accept the transfer. Bohlinger declined, considering it unrealistic and impracticable, and retired.

Bohlinger filed suit in 2018. Abbott moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule for a party when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and that the party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Timeliness of the 2015 Claims

The New York City Human Rights Law has a three-year limitations period. Because Bohlinger filed suit on June 14, 2018, the court held that claims based on conduct before June 14, 2015—including his classification during the spring 2015 specialization—were time barred unless an exception applied.

Bohlinger argued that the continuing-violation doctrine extended the filing deadline. That doctrine can apply when related discriminatory events continue as part of an ongoing discriminatory policy or practice. The court rejected the argument because Bohlinger identified no specific evidence connecting the 2015 classification decision with the 2017 realignment. Different supervisors made the two decisions, they occurred in different contexts, and they were more than two years apart. The court therefore held that the claims based on the 2015 conduct were time barred.

The court stated, however, that the 2015 conduct—including Schultz’s question about how long Bohlinger would remain—could be used as background evidence supporting a timely claim. The court did not decide whether the 2015 claims would otherwise have survived summary judgment.

The Remaining Claims

The court examined the timely claims under the New York City Human Rights Law’s burden-shifting framework. Abbott offered a nondiscriminatory reason for the 2017 action: Bohlinger’s territory had fallen below the company’s target workload, creating concern about whether the territory could continue. The court explained that summary judgment was proper unless Bohlinger offered evidence from which a jury could find that Abbott’s stated reason was not genuine or was a cover for age discrimination.

Bohlinger argued that the 2017 workload problem resulted from the allegedly discriminatory 2015 territory design. The court rejected that argument because it had already found that the 2015 and 2017 events were not sufficiently related to constitute one continuing act of discrimination. The court also rejected reliance on Schultz’s retirement-related question. It found that the comment was isolated, occurred well before the 2017 realignment, and was not connected to the people who made the 2017 decision.

Bohlinger also argued that deposition testimony from Brown and Siddiqui contained inconsistent explanations. The court found that, although they differed about whether Siddiqui had already decided what to do with the territory, both agreed that the workload was too low for the existing territory assignment to continue and that a transfer to the New Jersey territory was a proposed solution. The court characterized the testimony as variations on the same explanation, not a material contradiction showing that Abbott’s reason was a cover for discrimination.

Disposition

The court held that Bohlinger had not submitted admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether Abbott’s explanation was a cover for age discrimination. Judge J. Paul Oetken therefore granted Abbott’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 30 and close the case. The opinion does not state that the motion or case was dismissed with or without prejudice.