Opinion ID: 1004508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Constant Monitoring upon Return to Gateway

Text: Cleary insists that she was reassigned to Gateway following her maternity leave to punish her for reporting Herlong’s harassment and to enable Betts to monitor her in an effort to gain evidence for this lawsuit. According to Nationwide, however, Cleary was brought back 14 CLEARY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. to Gateway so that Betts could supervise her directly, because Betts had received complaints about Cleary from people she interacted with at Lexington, including comments that she was inefficient, made too many personal phone calls, and had a negative attitude. To show that this reason was a pretext for retaliation, Cleary relies on evidence that she received good evaluations and complimentary cards and e-mail messages from Betts and other Nationwide employees and customers while assigned to Lexington. Cleary does not, however, point to any evidence calling into question Betts’s testimony that she reassigned Cleary to Gateway to confirm or refute the claims that were made against her and also to help her be more efficient in her work[,] J.A. 175, that she discussed the complaints directly with Cleary rather than including them in her evaluation, and that she was satisfied that Cleary’s performance had improved upon return to Gateway. Although Nationwide denies that Cleary was monitored to gain evidence in defense of this lawsuit, the company contends that any monitoring by Betts of Cleary would have been justified because of Betts’s position as Cleary’s supervisor. Even assuming that Betts did monitor Cleary, Cleary does not point to any evidence that such monitoring was extraordinary.