Title: Robertson v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Robertson v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (2001-466); 176 Vt. 356; 848 A.2d 310

2004 VT 15

[Filed 06-Feb-2004]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 8-Mar-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 15

                                No. 2001-466

  Lynne Robertson	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Franklin Superior Court

  Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Bertek, Inc. 	 June Term, 2002
  and Sharad Govil

  Ben W. Joseph, J.

  Andrew Jackson, Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Patricia M. Sabalis of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Burlington, and Kathryn
    Mrkonich-Wilson of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
    Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse (FN1), Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   In this workplace gender discrimination case
  brought under the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act, 21 V.S.A. §§
  495-496, plaintiff Lynne Robertson appeals the superior court's grant of
  summary judgment in favor of defendants Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Bertek,
  Inc., and Sharad Govil.  Plaintiff claims that defendants discriminated
  against her by failing to promote her, by giving her a low level of pay
  relative to her male peers at the company, and by terminating her in
  retaliation for her gender discrimination complaint.  We affirm.
   
                    I. Facts and Procedural History (FN2)

       ¶  2.  Plaintiff was employed as a scientist in the Research and
  Development Division at Bertek, Inc. (now known as Mylan Technologies,
  Inc.), a St. Albans-based pharmaceutical company that develops and
  manufactures transdermal (through the skin) drugs.  Bertek is a subsidiary
  of Mylan Laboratories, Inc.  Plaintiff was hired by Bertek in September
  1993 after interviewing with Dr. Ludwig Weimann and Dr. Sharad Govil. 
  According to Govil, he supported hiring plaintiff, although plaintiff
  disputes that fact.  At that time, plaintiff held a B.S. degree in biology
  and a master's degree in biochemistry, and had previous experience in the
  pharmaceutical industry and drug formulation, but had no prior educational
  or work experience in transdermal drug development. Throughout her career
  at Bertek, she worked directly or indirectly under Govil, who is now
  General Manager of Bertek.

       ¶  3.  In 1994, while working full-time at Bertek, plaintiff began
  taking courses in pharmacology at the University of Vermont in pursuit of
  her doctoral degree, with Govil's approval. Plaintiff claims that Govil
  initially did not wish to approve her education, and did so only after she
  went to higher management with her request.  Regardless, Govil twice
  approved plaintiff's request for a flexible work schedule, and also
  approved Bertek's payment of her tuition.  Plaintiff completed the course
  requirements for the Ph.D. at the end of 1995. 
   
       ¶  4.  Plaintiff worked under Govil in 1994 and 1995, and was
  promoted twice during that time, first to Senior Scientist in May 1995 at a
  salary of $46,275, then to Manager of Permeation and Dissolution in July
  1995 at a salary of $52,000.  In late 1996, plaintiff asked Govil to
  transfer her to the Formulations Group because she did not like the way she
  was being treated by her supervisor.  Govil granted this request, and
  plaintiff became Manager of Permeation in the Formulations Group. 

       ¶  5.  Despite the promotions and the discretionary transfer Govil
  approved, during 1997 and early 1998 plaintiff complained to several Bertek
  personnel that Govil treated her unfairly because of her gender.  She
  claims that Dr. Scott Burton, Manager of Formulations and plaintiff's
  immediate supervisor, indicated to her that he agreed with her, and that
  Interim President Lou Debone and General Manager Matthew Costigan told her
  that Govil's actions were due to his "cultural differences" with respect to
  the treatment of women.  Also during that period, several scientists in the
  Research and Development department, including Burton, left Bertek. 
  Plaintiff claims that many of those employees - most of whom were male -
  left because they were dissatisfied with Govil's style and management.  

       ¶  6.  The events underlying much of this case relate to Govil's
  actions in response to the departure of Burton and others.  Govil proposed
  to upper management to split the Formulations Group into two groups: drug
  delivery and polymer science.  In response to problems with drugs under
  development, he proposed to upgrade the scientific ability of the staff
  leaders in product development.  As the restructuring was approved in
  February of 1998, the Manager of Formulations position was eliminated, and
  a new position of Director of Research and Development created.  The
  positions of Supervisor of Drug Delivery and Supervisor of Polymers were
  created to report to the new research and development director.
   
       ¶  7.  While the restructuring was going on, Govil announced an
  interim organization.  On January 21, 1998 he made plaintiff interim head
  of formulations while she continued to serve as Manager of Permeations. 
  Govil asserts that this promotion was due to plaintiff's seniority,
  although plaintiff claims that Govil never conveyed that reason to her. 
  Govil drafted job descriptions for two new supervisor positions.  For the
  position of Supervisor of Drug Delivery, the job description required a
  Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics, Material Science, or Chemical Engineering, as well
  as five years of transdermal formulations experience.

  ¶  8.  Consistent with the view that Bertek needed to upgrade the
  scientific skills of key employees in product development, Govil initiated
  a search for qualified persons.  He identified Dr. Kenneth Miller as the
  most likely candidate for Supervisor of Drug Delivery, based on an
  interview in January, 1998 before the position was approved.  Govil posted
  the Supervisor of Drug Delivery position on February 13, 1998, and shortly
  after the application closing date, one week later, hired Dr. Miller.

       ¶  9.  Plaintiff believes that she should have been hired as
  Supervisor of Drug Delivery and she was rejected because she is a woman. 
  She alleges a number of "irregularities" in the hiring of Dr. Miller:

    1.  He was interviewed before the job was even created.  In
    plaintiff's view, this process violated a policy requiring that
    open positions be posted and that internal candidates be
    interviewed before external candidates.
    2.  The job description was created to mirror Dr. Miller's
    qualifications, rather than the reverse.
    3.  The opening was posted on Friday in violation of a policy
    requiring posting on Wednesday and was open for a week for which
    Govil believed plaintiff would be on vacation.
    4.  Bertek had on other occasions waived minimum education
    requirements for applicants who were close to having the needed
    education qualifications.  Govil refused to waive the minimum
    qualifications in plaintiff's case.
    5.  Miller was unqualified because he lacked industrial
    experience, which is generally favored at Bertek; during the
    interview process, Miller stated that "getting drugs to go through
    skin" was not his area of expertise. 

       ¶  10.  Plaintiff submitted an application for the Supervisor of Drug
  Delivery position on February 19, and the next day met with Govil for over
  an hour to discuss the position.  According to defendants, Govil did not
  believe that plaintiff was qualified for the position due to her lack of a
  Ph.D. and the requisite five years of transdermal formulations experience. 
  In contrast, Miller held a B.S. and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, had
  worked for a successful competitor as well as several universities where he
  had performed transdermal drug research work for private corporations, and
  had authored publications and made numerous presentations on transdermal
  drugs. 

         ¶  11.  Plaintiff was subsequently told that she was being promoted
  and that her salary would be increased to $60,000 (approximately $4,000
  more than she was being paid at the time).  The exact position that
  plaintiff was promoted to is disputed.  Plaintiff claims that her new title
  was to be Senior Manager of Projects, and that she was to be in charge of
  all of the corporation's projects.  She contends that this promotion was
  inexplicably delayed, and that her new pay was substantially less than the
  $80,000 that other staff at that level - specifically, new Supervisor of
  Drug Delivery Miller - were receiving.  Defendants respond that, after
  plaintiff had submitted a proposed job description, defendants provided
  plaintiff with a revised position description stating that her title would
  be Project Manager and that her salary would be $60,000.  Defendants also
  claim that plaintiff was told that there would be a transition period as
  she wrapped up work on her other projects. 
   
       ¶  12.  In May 1998, plaintiff filed a formal complaint with Bertek,
  claiming that she was denied the Supervisor of Drug Delivery position, the
  Senior Manager of Projects title, and an $80,000 salary due to her gender. 
  Plaintiff alleges that as a result of her complaint, she was treated
  unfairly by Govil and other Bertek personnel.  The Human Resources
  department subsequently conducted an investigation of the complaint and
  ultimately found that plaintiff had not been subject to unfair or
  discriminatory treatment.  In July 1998, plaintiff filed a charge of gender
  discrimination with the Vermont Attorney General and the Equal Employment
  Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Following an investigation, the EEOC
  concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that plaintiff had been
  discriminated against based on her gender or retaliated against for filing
  a complaint, and dismissed her charge. 

       ¶  13.  Plaintiff continued to work for Bertek as Project Manager,
  even after she filed the current lawsuit in Franklin County Superior Court
  in July 1999.  Finally, in February 2000, plaintiff was terminated for
  breach of her confidentiality agreement with Bertek for alleged
  dissemination, via a resume submitted to a recruiter, of information
  regarding projects she had worked on for the company.  Plaintiff contends
  that none of the information found on the resume was detrimental to the
  company and that other employees had divulged similar types of information
  and had not been punished.  She added to this litigation a count that
  defendants retaliated against her for her complaint to the Vermont Attorney
  General and the filing of this case.
   
       ¶  14.  As amended after plaintiff was terminated, the complaint in
  this case had three counts: (1) defendants Govil, Bertek and Mylan
  Laboratories committed unlawful employment practices in violation of the
  Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA), 21 V.S.A. § 495 et seq., in
  failing to hire plaintiff as Supervisor of Drug Delivery; (2) defendants
  committed unlawful employment practices in violation of FEPA by actions
  against plaintiff taken in retaliation for her complaints of gender
  discrimination directly to defendants and to the Attorney General; and (3)
  defendants committed unfair employment practices in violation of Title VII
  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., by all the above
  actions.  In response to a motion by defendants, the trial court rendered
  summary judgment for defendants on all counts on July 31, 2001.  Plaintiff
  subsequently brought this appeal contesting the dismissal of the two FEPA
  counts.

                        II. Summary Judgment Standard

       ¶  15.  On review of a grant of summary judgment, this Court will
  apply the same standard as that used by the trial court.  White v. Quechee
  Lakes Landowners' Ass'n, Inc.,170 Vt. 25, 28,