The
[Page 15]
gap of six months between July 2005 and January 2006 is not sufficiently proximate to permit the inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor to her termination, and thus Plaintiff has failed to establish her prima facie case.
Alternatively, even assuming that Plaintiff has set out a prima facie case and proffered evidence that her report was a contributing factor in her termination, O & M has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it would have fired Plaintiff even in the absence of her report.
In 2003, Plaintiff was placed on probation for performance-related reasons including "fail[ure] to communicate valuable client information," being "argumentative with her managers," and "not being able to solve problems in a positive manner." (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Although Plaintiff showed "some" improvement, and was not terminated at that time ( id. ¶ 9), Plaintiff was placed back on probation in November 2005 (id. ¶ 12). The 2005 Notice of Probation ("Notice") quotes from complaints received from several account groups within & M, including, for example, a stat ement that "[o]verall, we as a team (account team and creative), do not want to work with Cindy Pardy again. The process has been far too difficult" and proceeds to list specific complaints. (Corcoran Decl. Ex. B.)
[Page 16]
The Notice informs Plaintiff that, as a result, those accounts that did not want to work with her would have to be "re-routed away" from Plaintiff. (Id.) The Notice states that these issues are "serious enough for [Plaintiff] to have to go back on probation." (Id.) She was informed that "[y]our probation starts immediately and lasts 30 days from [November 14, 2005]," that it was her "final warning" and unless Plaintiff corrected these issues, she will be terminated. (Id.)
Plaintiff made no response to the Notice of Probation until after the thirty-day period had run, waiting until December 16 to respond. (See id. Ex. C.) Plaintiff termed her reply "a preliminary and incomplete response," and stated that she was "unable to provide a definitive response to the undocumented and apparently hearsay accusations contained" because there was "no specificity or detail ... concerning the identity of the individuals" quoted in the Notice. In that response, and in her documents submitted to this Court (see, e.g., Pardy Decl.App. at pp. 50-104), Plaintiff never argued that the criticisms attributed to her co-workers were fabricated. Instead, she simply disagreed with the assessment of her performance made by the account groups quoted in the Notice, and stated that the comments were "inaccurate." To support her view, Plaintiff pointed to various e-mails, which, she claimed, demonstrated that she adequately performed her duties. (See Pardy Decl.
[Page 17]
¶¶ 63-64 and App.) For example, in response to complaints that an account team no longer wanted to work with Plaintiff because she was difficult to work with, Plaintiff offered a 2004 e-mail from a supervisor on that account expressing "confidence" that "everything is under control." (See Pardy App. at 70.)
As a factual matter, isolated e-mails from earlier time periods are insufficient to counter the November 2005 complaints. As a legal matter, Plaintiff's own assessment of her performance is not cognizable on summary judgment; it is her employer's assessment that controls. See Ricks v. Conde Nast Publications Inc., 6 Fed. Appx. 74, 78 (2d Cir.2001) (In a Title VII case, "an employee's disagreement with her employer's evaluation of her performance is insufficient to establish discriminatory intent."). On that topic, Ms. Zanne, the Director of Human Resources at O & M, states that during the probationary period, Plaintiff "failed to demonstrate the improvement required by the terms of her probation," (Zanne Decl. ¶ 17) hardly a surprising conclusion given that Plaintiff did not respond to the Notice until after the probationary period had expired. In sum, the record is undisputed that O & M received complaints of Plaintiff's poor performance from Plaintiff's co-workers and relied on those complaints in terminating her, and Plaintiff has proffered no cognizable evidence that O & M's reason for terminating her-poor performance-was pretextual. Thus,
[Page 18]
even assuming that Plaintiff has put forth a prima facie retaliation case, O & M has shown by clear and convincing evidence that her termination was for performance-related issues unrelated to her Bangkok report. Because of the dispositions above, I do not reach Defendants' other arguments.
For the reasons set out above, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 61] is DENIED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 60] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's other motions [dkt. nos. 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 32, 34, 47, and 61] are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: New York, New York
July 15, 2008
LORETTA A. PRESKA, U.S.D.J.
[ENDNOTES]
1 "Corcoran Decl." refers to the Declaration of Paul Corcoran dated, Feb. 21, 2007. (dkt. no. 4.) "Dkt. no. _" refers to the docket in Prady v. Gray et al., 06 Civ. 6801 in the Eastern District of New York.
2 "Hall Decl." refers to the Declaration of Gloria Hall dated, May 9, 2007. (dkt. no. 56.)
3 Reference is made to the page number in the Complaint rather than the paragraph number because the Complaint's paragraphs are not properly numbered.
4 "Pardy App." refers to the Appendix in support of Cynthia Pardy's declaration, dated June 11, 2007. (dkt. no. 67.)
5 "Def. Statement" refers to Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement In Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May 24, 2007. (dkt. no. 56.)
6 "Zanne Decl." refers to the declaration of Carlene Zanne, dated May 9, 2007. (dkt. no. 56.)
7 Reference is to Cynthia Pardy's Rule 56.1 Statement dated June 11, 2007. (dkt no. 65.)
8 Plaintiff also claims that she contacted some other supervisors in the interim, but the substance of the allegations she made to those other supervisors is unclear, and there is nothing to suggest that it actually contained protected activity. Her December letter to Grey was written after she was placed on the probation that led to her termination and therefore cannot be relied on.