Delville v. Firmenich Inc.
920 F. Supp. 2d 446
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Delville, age 58, sues former employer Firmenich for federal, state, and local discrimination claims and contract claims related to CAP and Incentive Plans.
- Firmenich allegedly reduced Delville’s hours/pay and did not renew his contract in 2007, amid age-related concerns.
- Two CAP plans (CAP I and CAP II) had differing vesting/forfeiture rules; CAP II allowed for employee contributions to vest, with forfeiture of employer contributions on departure to competitors.
- Delville signed a March–May 2007 revised employment agreement reducing salary and hours to 28 per week, with at-will status; he resigned in July 2007 for Symrise, bringing complaints of age discrimination.
- Delville allegedly retained some confidential formulas; after departure, missing/faxed formulas and related documents were debated, with disputes over whether Delville violated secrecy/confidentiality duties.
- Firmenich counters that Delville breached secrecy and loyalty obligations, misappropriated trade secrets, engaged in unfair competition, and that ERISA preemption of his contract claim is waived by not pleading it as an affirmative defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under ADEA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL | Delville was treated less favorably due to age; younger perfumers had access to opportunities. | Company had non-discriminatory reasons: performance-based pay/market factors; no but-for causation shown. | Discrimination claims survive summary judgment; triable issue on pretext. |
| Retaliation for protected activity | Defendant retaliated after Delville complained of age discrimination and engaged in litigation. | No clear non-retaliatory basis; but plaintiff failed to show direct causal link. | Retaliation claim survives summary judgment; causal connection shown indirectly and directly. |
| Breach of contract (CAP/Incentive Plans) | Defendant breached CAP/I plans by underpaying and not honoring terms of Amended Agreement; potential oral modification. | Cap/I terms allegedly altered by later oral agreement; parol/modification issues; preemption defenses waived. | Genuine issues as to CAP amendment and damages; summary judgment denied on contract claim. |
| Breach of Secrecy Agreement | Secrecy Agreement binding; defendant breached by improper handling of confidential notes/formulas. | Dispute on whether a contract exists or was breached; secrecy duties arguably breached. | Secrecy agreement recognized as binding contract; material facts exist to support breach. |
| Duty of loyalty and misappropriation counterclaims | Defendant misused confidential information to benefit new employers; loyalty breached. | No evidence of misuse or misappropriation to employer’s detriment beyond conjecture. | Duty of loyalty and misappropriation claims lacking sufficient evidence; some dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (Adea final step requires but-for causation in ADEA suits)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (Applies a three-part burden-shifting framework in ADEA cases with but-for causation at the final step)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) ( Adverse action standards applied to retaliation emphasis on deterrence)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (Burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims (initial prima facie case, then pretext))
- Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 2001) (Pretext evidence includes discriminatory statements and mixed workforce)
- Dominguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424 (1st Cir. 2000) (Evidence of age-related comments supports inference of discrimination)
- Owens v. New York City Housing Authority, 934 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1991) (Discrimination claims may be supported by circumstantial evidence)
- Espinal v. Coord, 2d Cir., 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (Temporal proximity and causal inference in retaliation/discrimination)
- Williams v. Regus Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 836 F. Supp. 2d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (NYCHRL retaliation standard broader than federal)
- Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 N.J. 380 (N.J. 1919) (parol modifications and no-oral-modification clauses may be waived by conduct)
- Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012) (center-of-gravity choice-of-law approach to contracts)
- Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Grey stone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2011) (New Jersey contract damages framework and implied terms)