Wolpert v. Abbott Laboratories
2011 WL 4073508
D.N.J.2011Background
- Wolpert, a territory manager in Abbott Vascular Endo, became pregnant in 2007 while employed there.
- An August 2007 Cardiac Therapies TM opening was filled by a male candidate; Berry conducted interviews including for Plaintiff.
- Abbott’s September 2007 RIF merged Endo and Vessel Closure and used objective power-score criteria to determine terminations.
- A calculation error (zero suppression) in the power-score spreadsheet affected eight TMs, including Wolpert, altering who was recommended for termination.
- Wolpert was notified of termination on September 19, 2007, while on maternity leave; HR personnel reportedly aware of pregnancy prior to the RIF, but details are disputed.
- Approximately 111 employees were terminated in the RIF; several impacted employees were not reinstated, including Wolpert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| August 2007 Cardiac Therapies failure to hire | Wolpert alleges discrimination based on pregnancy/sex in not being hired. | Berry did not discriminate; decision based on candidate interest and qualifications. | Genuine issue of material fact on pretext; failure-to-hire claim survives. |
| September 2007 RIF termination | Termination targeted Wolpert due to pregnancy/sex. | RIF based on objective power-scores with a calculation error; termination not discriminatory. | Summary judgment granted for discrimination claim; no pretext shown. |
| FMLA/NJFLA entitlement | Wolpert entitled to reinstatement after qualified leave. | Employer must show would have terminated absent leave; no reinstatement required if position eliminated. | Entitlement claim defeated; Wolpert would have been terminated irrespective of leave. |
| FMLA/NJFLA retaliation | Discrimination due to leave status. | Termination not causally related to leave; mass RIF. | Retaliation claim fails; no causal nexus proven. |
| 2006 transfer discrimination claim | Discrimination tied to 2006 transfer. | No viable prima facie case; no pretext shown. | Summary judgment for defendant on transfer discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.1994) (McDonnell Douglas framework for pretext in discrimination claims)
- El-Sioufi v. St. Peter's University Hosp., 382 N.J. Super. 145 (App.Div.2005) (NJLAD discrimination framework; prima facie elements)
- McConnell v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 61 F. Supp. 2d 356 (D.N.J.1999) (Pregnancy discrimination treated as sex discrimination under NJLAD; use of McDonnell Douglas)
- Parker v. Hanhemann University Hosp., 234 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D.N.J.2002) (FMLA entitlement framework; burden on showing would have been terminated absent leave)
- Francis v. Pueblo Xtra Intl., Inc., 412 Fed.Appx. 470 (3d Cir.2010) (Legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for RIF; pretext requires more than mere error)
- Conoshenti v. Public Svc. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir.2004) (FMLA retaliation framework; causal nexus considerations)
- Kautz v. Met-Pro Corp., 412 F.3d 463 (3d Cir.2005) (Pretext cannot be shown by pure speculation; must show weaknesses in employer’s reasons)