WIRT v. VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC.
2:23-cv-04949
E.D. Pa.May 29, 2025Background
- Alana Wirt, a sales account executive at Veeva Systems for over four years, was terminated in March 2023 due to poor performance, according to the company.
- Wirt alleged her termination was due to sex discrimination and Veeva's failure to accommodate her medical condition (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis), which prevented her from fully participating in the company’s social culture and in-person gatherings.
- During her time at Veeva, Wirt worked remotely, including during the pandemic when Veeva implemented a temporary COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Wirt received an exemption and continued working remotely without penalty.
- Wirt was consistently rated near the bottom of her group in internal performance rankings and was criticized by multiple managers for not generating new business and inaccurate sales forecasting.
- Wirt sued Veeva under Title VII, the ADA, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), asserting discrimination based on sex and disability and failure to accommodate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination (Title VII) | Wirt claims termination resulted from Veeva’s male-dominated, "boys club culture" and workplace events hostile to women. | Veeva says Wirt was terminated solely for poor performance, with no evidence termination was based on sex. | For Veeva; no evidence suggests actionable sex discrimination. |
| Disability discrimination (ADA) | Wirt alleges she was terminated due to her Hashimoto’s and inability to participate in social/late-night events. | Veeva asserts her supervisors were unaware of her specific condition and that her medical status played no role in termination. | For Veeva; no causal link between disability and termination. |
| Failure to accommodate (ADA) | Wirt contends Veeva failed to accommodate her inability to attend late events and participate in "party culture." | Veeva argues she was never required to attend or drink at social events, and all requested accommodations (vaccine exemption) were granted. | For Veeva; no unreasonable denial of requested accommodations. |
| State law claims (PHRA) | Claims sex/disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under PHRA. | Same defenses as under Title VII/ADA. | For Veeva; resolved identically to federal claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 1999) (Title VII discrimination prima facie elements)
- Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2010) (ADA prima facie standard)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (pretext in discrimination claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (Title VII is not a general civility code)
- Capps v. Mondelez Glob., LLC, 847 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2017) (ADA failure to accommodate standard)