Arnold v. Pfizer, Inc.
970 F. Supp. 2d 1106
D. Or.2013Background
- Kimberly Arnold, a long‑time Pfizer sales representative, was terminated in June 2009 after an internal investigation into alleged irregularities in her Starter Activity Forms (SAFs) and alleged "form‑banking."
- Arnold has documented physical injuries from a 2005 vehicle accident, multiple medical leaves (short‑ and long‑term), and later an ADD diagnosis disclosed in June 2009; she had requested a vehicular accommodation under the ADA.
- Pfizer’s PDMA/Starter Administration policy required contemporaneous entry and daily synchronization of SAFs to Sherlock; PDMA compliance director James Batura audited Arnold’s SAFs and reported irregularities to FDA and management.
- Arnold produced an expert (Freeman) challenging the methodological/statistical basis of Batura’s conclusions; Pfizer relied on Batura’s investigation and managerial concerns (especially by manager Darcy Small) to terminate Arnold.
- Procedurally Pfizer moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court: granted summary judgment as to state Rehabilitation Act retaliation, workers‑compensation retaliation, and wrongful termination; denied summary judgment as to ADA discrimination and retaliation (federal), Oregon Rehabilitation Act discrimination, and FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA disability discrimination — prima facie and causation | Arnold is disabled (back injury, ADD), qualified with reasonable accommodation, and termination was motivated at least in part by disability and related leave/requests | Pfizer says Arnold was unqualified (couldn't drive/record SAFs accurately) and was terminated for legitimate PDMA/SAF violations | Genuine disputes of material fact exist; summary judgment denied on ADA discrimination and state Rehabilitation Act discrimination |
| ADA retaliation (requesting accommodation) | Request for accommodation and related complaints were protected; termination causally linked to accommodation request and medical disclosures | Pfizer contends it had a legitimate, non‑retaliatory reason (SAF misconduct) and any adverse action preceded or was unrelated to accommodation requests | Summary judgment denied on ADA retaliation (factual disputes on causation and pretext); state Rehabilitation Act retaliation dismissed (no evidence termination motivated "in substantial part") |
| FMLA interference | Pfizer’s handling of medical leave and timing of investigation made Arnold’s use/request for leave a negative factor in termination | Pfizer says it granted leave multiple times, had independent grounds to terminate, and no pending leave at termination | Genuine issues of material fact exist on whether FMLA‑protected leave was a negative factor; summary judgment denied |
| Workers’ compensation retaliation & wrongful termination (Oregon common law) | Arnold says invocation of workers’ compensation and related treatment support retaliation and wrongful discharge | Pfizer points to temporal gap and statutory remedies covering her claims (and independent basis for termination) | Workers’ compensation retaliation and wrongful discharge claims dismissed (no causal link for comp claim; statutory remedies preclude common‑law wrongful discharge) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert testimony gatekeeping under Fed. R. Evid. 702)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and requirement of more than a scintilla of evidence)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment where record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (employer’s honest belief suffices as legitimate non‑discriminatory reason)
- Bates v. UPS, 511 F.3d 974 (definition of "qualified individual" under ADA)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (interactive process and when it is triggered)
- Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078 (conduct resulting from disability considered part of the disability)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (same principle regarding disability‑related conduct)
- Bachelder v. America West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (FMLA interference standard)