Gilderhus v. Concentrix Corp., 825 F. Supp. 2d 414

Plaintiff Connie Gilderhus was employed by Concentrix as Director of Call Center Operations in Pittsford, NY for five months starting February 26, 2007, with a base salary of $85,000 and potential bonuses that were not approved by management.
Her supervisors were Richard Rapach (Vice President and General Manager) and Christopher Gelder (Vice President of Operations); Gelder had previously hired her at Sutherland and the two were familiar from prior employment.
Prior to Concentrix, Plaintiff was General Manager at Sutherland, reporting to Rapach, and resigned there to adopt a child.
Plaintiff managed the Direct Energy and Citibank accounts; she asserted authority to award bonuses on the Direct Energy account and later took over Citibank to salvage the program, with performance plans and improvement efforts for several staff.
Citibank audit concerns arose over employees quoting interest rates and underperformance; Plaintiff placed five agents on performance improvement plans and, after a monitored session, Citibank terminated the program, leading to Plaintiff’s termination on August 7, 2007.
Following the loss of Citibank, Concentrix terminated eight other employees; Plaintiff alleges discrimination and retaliation in connection with her termination and related bonus issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate treatment based on sex in termination	Gilderhus alleges she was terminated while similarly situated male employees were not.	Termination was based on performance failures managing the Citibank account, not sex.	Defendant granted summary judgment; no showing of sex-based discrimination.
Whether defendant's proffered reasons were pretextual	The reasons are false or a cover for discriminatory animus because others were treated more favorably and she was replaced by a male.	The losses stemmed from her failure to manage the account and communicate问题 to executives; no evidence of discriminatory motive.	No genuine issue of material fact; reasons were non-discriminatory and not pretextual.
Retaliation claim under Title VII	Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by pursuing bonuses and reporting concerns, and termination followed soon after.	Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity as required, and even if she did, no causal link to termination.	Retaliation claim dismissed; no protected activity or causal nexus established.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000) (burden shifts after plaintiff demonstrates prima facie case)
Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2000) (guides evaluating whether employer's reasons are pretextual at summary judgment)
Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (discrimination prima facie framework and inferences)
Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 2001) (de minimis prima facie burden and consideration of evidence on summary judgment)
de la Cruz v. New York City Human Resources Admin. Dept. of Social Services, 82 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1996) (requires basic skills for the prima facie case; not perfection)
Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Development Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (employer's nondiscriminatory reasons and dispositive evidence on summary judgment)
Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (same-actor hiring and later firing reduces inference of discriminatory motive)