Opinion ID: 796168
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: meeting legitimate expectations

Text: 21 Ms. Merillat contends that she was meeting her employer's expectations. She invites our attention to her yearly reviews for 2001 and 2002 in which Wiland's overall rating of her performance was Satisfactory/Good. R.44, Ex.E-F. She also points to a letter that she received in January of 2003 that notes that she had been awarded a raise in her salary and that this adjustment in salary recognize[d her] performance during the past year. R.44, Ex.L. 22 Metal Spinners relies on the same reviews. It submits that the written comments on those reviews indicate that Ms. Merillat was not meeting her employer's expectations. More specifically, Wiland testified in his deposition that Ms. Merillat did not meet his expectations for the following areas: ability to entertain strategic concepts and manage new projects, willingness to accept new challenges, ability to get along with others and willingness to implement a computer system. R.35 at 9-10. 23 The evaluations, while providing some negative comments, seem to be largely positive. In her 2001 evaluation, Ms. Merillat received an excellent rating in ten categories and satisfactory/good ratings in seventeen categories, with no categories rating below satisfactory/good. 2 See R.36 at 14-15. Some comments included on the evaluations are positive, such as Jan has made tremendous progress with areas previously noted for improvement, id. at 15, and, in the area of work habits, [s]he is performing at a level commensurate with her position and she needs to continue developing personally as an effective manager, id. Some comments, however, are more negative, such as Ms. Merillat may need to consider delegating additional tasks, id., and she needs to explore alternatives to her current methods and practices so cost improvements can be realized, id. at 14. 24 Similarly, in her 2002 evaluation, she received one outstanding rating, ten excellent ratings and sixteen satisfactory/good ratings, with no category rated lower than satisfactory/good. Id. at 18-19. Again, there are some positive comments, such as Ms. Merillat demonstrates continued improvement in teamwork, id. at 18, and she did an outstanding job of reducing raw materials inventories in 2002, id. There are also negative comments, such as she has too many redundant/duplicative business practices that must be challenged, id., and she must work on developing rapport with coworkers and with improving her overall morale and demeanor, id. at 19. 25 Mr. Wiland stated in his deposition that he had attempted to make the written evaluations as fair as possible. He first admitted in his deposition testimony that he did not indicate specifically on these evaluations that Ms. Merillat was failing in her expectations, R.35 at 20, but later stated that printed words [on the evaluation forms] in conjunction with [the conversation he had with Ms. Merillat while going over the forms with her] indicate that she was not fulfilling the expectations that we had for her at that position, id. at 23. 26 For her part, Ms. Merillat admitted to getting ugly with co-workers when they didn't do something right, in 2001, but also stated that later she changed. R.33 at 13-15. She contends that her job performance was largely positive and that the reason for some of her failings was that she did not get the necessary computer upgrades and training to utilize the Vantage system and eliminate some of her redundant practices. 27 We must conclude that, based on this record, material issues of fact certainly remain with respect to whether Ms. Merillat was meeting her employer's expectations. Her employment evaluations are, at best, inconclusive. Additionally, she did receive a raise that stated it was based, in part, on her performance. Therefore, summary judgment for Metal Spinners on this prong would be inappropriate. 28