Naik v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23938
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Naik, with over thirty years in pharma sales, was terminated by Boehringer Ingelheim for allegedly falsifying his call records.
- Naik claimed termination was due to age and national origin (Indian) in violation of ADEA and Title VII.
- Naik was hired in Jan 2004 as a professional sales representative for the Schaumburg territory; Lundsten supervised him.
- Lundsten found abnormal call-log entries: inconsistent sales numbers, late starts, irregular synchronization, and face-to-face calls with physicians on days they were unavailable.
- Lundsten, Somers, and Englram investigated, verified six falsified calls, and Naik could not provide a satisfactory explanation.
- Naik was terminated Aug 5, 2005; a 36-year-old non-Indian replaced him; other region employees were similarly sanctioned for falsifying calls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Naik met the second McDonnell Douglas element. | Naik argues he met expectations; logs show past performance adequate. | Naik falsified calls; he failed to meet legitimate expectations at termination. | Naik failed to meet expectations at time of termination. |
| Whether Naik shows a similarly situated non-preferred employee. | Nd alleges relaxed standard under Pantoja could apply. | All violators were terminated or resigned; none remained when violation occurred. | No evidence of similarly situated non-protected employees treated more favorably. |
| Whether BIPI's reason for termination was pretextual. | Discrimination or pretext due to age/national origin. | Falsification of call records was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. | No pretext shown; reason deemed legitimate and the court affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Egonmwan v. Cook County Sheriff's Department, 602 F.3d 845 (7th Cir.2010) (McDonnell Douglas burden shifting standard for indirect evidence)
- Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708 (7th Cir.2004) (past performance relevance; still must prove current performance)
- Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., 589 F.3d 357 (7th Cir.2009) (directly comparable co-workers must engage in comparable violations)
- Forrester v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 453 F.3d 416 (7th Cir.2006) (employer’s non-pretextual ground ends inquiry; focus on truth of reason)
- Ineichen v. Ameritech, 410 F.3d 956 (7th Cir.2005) (pretext standard; not the court's concern about correctness of decision)
- Pantoja v. American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., 495 F.3d 840 (7th Cir.2007) (relaxed fourth-element standard if plaintiff shows ongoing performance)