Jenny Martin v. Eli Lilly & Co.
702 F. App'x 952
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jenny Martin, a Lilly sales rep diagnosed with major depressive disorder, received "low successful" ratings in 2009–2010 and was displaced in a 2011 Lilly reorganization that redrew Georgia territories.
- An HR Index (weighted seniority and performance) resulted in Martin losing the northern-Georgia territory to a colleague with slightly higher seniority and a better 2011 rating.
- Lilly allowed displaced employees months to apply for open positions while retaining full pay/benefits; Lilly offered Martin a lateral NABS sales position in Charlotte (for which she had applied) and would pay relocation.
- Martin declined the Charlotte offer because she did not want to continue reporting to her supervisor, Darrell Craven, and later left Lilly; she sued under the ADA (and FMLA), alleging disability discrimination based on negative evaluations and displacement.
- A jury found for Martin on the ADA claim and awarded emotional damages, but the Eleventh Circuit reviewed Lilly’s Rule 50 JMOL challenge and reversed, holding no reasonable jury could find an adverse employment action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negative performance evaluations and year-end ratings were adverse employment actions | Martin: evaluations materially harmed employment prospects and contributed to displacement | Lilly: evaluations alone are not adverse absent tangible harm (loss of pay, benefits, promotion) | Held: evaluations alone are not adverse; insufficient evidence they caused tangible harm |
| Whether displacement from territory constituted an adverse employment action | Martin: displacement forced her to compete for jobs, effectively costing her her position in Atlanta and hindering health care continuity | Lilly: displacement only meant temporary removal from automatic placement; Lilly preserved pay/benefits and offered a lateral position she had sought | Held: no reasonable jury could find displacement was adverse given retention of pay/benefits and lateral offer |
| Whether the Charlotte transfer offer was materially adverse due to distance and continued supervision by Craven | Martin: 240-mile move and continued reporting to Craven (who she alleged discriminated) made offer adverse | Lilly: offer was a lateral transfer to a position Martin requested and applied for; relocation paid; transfer not because of disability | Held: transfer was not adverse — reasonable person in Martin’s position would not view it as materially adverse |
| Whether any adverse action was taken because of disability (causation) | Martin: negative ratings and displacement were motivated by disability bias | Lilly: actions were based on performance and HR Index business rules; Charlotte offer reflected Martin’s own expressed interest | Held: court did not reach a separate favorable finding for plaintiff on causation because plaintiff failed to establish an adverse action |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (standard for evaluating evidence on JMOL and weighing employer evidence)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (definition of tangible employment action and examples)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (negative evaluations alone do not constitute adverse action)
- Doe v. Dekalb Cty. Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441 (11th Cir. 1998) (objective test for adverse action under ADA)
- Davis v. Town of Lake Park, 245 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001) (reluctance to treat memoranda as actionable absent tangible consequences)
- Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997) (transfers involving arduous travel may be adverse)
- Stavropoulos v. Firestone, 361 F.3d 610 (11th Cir. 2004) (rescinded adverse action that caused no tangible harm is not actionable)