Opinion ID: 2708456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HR Call and Informal Warning

Text: One of Lozen’s first acts as the district manager was to ask for his employees’ dates of birth. It appears that from the early days of Lozen’s tenure, he and Hutt had friction. When the name of the predecessor company and the entity that employed Hutt, for consistency with the district court’s opinion. No. 13‐1481 3 several types of new software for internal accounting of ex‐ pense reports and time off were introduced, Hutt requested training assistance for the software, but did not receive a re‐ sponse from Lozen. She did not complete those reports. On March 19, 2008—three months into Lozen’s tenure—John, the Plaintiff‐Appellant’s husband, called Solvay’s human re‐ sources department to voice his concerns about the Plaintiff‐ Appellant’s stress and depression. He stated that part of the problem was the way that Lozen and Westfall treated her. Two days after John’s HR call, Lozen phoned Hutt at her home and spoke at some length—38 minutes—to strongly express his displeasure with her complaint to HR. A week after the call to HR, Lozen and Westfall placed Hutt on an Informal Warning Status and issued a Performance Im‐ provement Plan (“PIP”). The PIP required Hutt to finish her uncompleted administrative tasks within the next five days, by March 31, when the company’s national sales meeting was scheduled to start. Lozen approved a computer trainer to help Hutt with the new software the same day Hutt was placed on warning status. Hutt completed some, but not all, of her incomplete tasks by the time the national sales meet‐ ing began.