 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barth v. Hoffmann-La Roche6/6/2002
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. on age discrimination and retaliation claims brought by Carol Barth. Barth sued Roche alleging several causes of action. Among other things, she claimed that, because of her age, she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and ultimately discharged during a reduction in force. She further alleged Roche retaliated against her for filing a lawsuit against it alleging age discrimination. After a series of summary judgment motions, the trial court granted Roche summary judgment on all of Barth's causes of action. In a single point of error, Barth appeals only the trial court's ruling on her age discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). Based on the record before us, we conclude Roche was entitled to summary judgment on these claims. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.
Factual Background
Viewed in the light most favorable to Barth, the summary evidence reveals the following. Barth was hired by Roche in 1975 as a pharmaceutical sales representative. In 1986, Barth was assigned to a new supervisor, James Webber. Shortly after the assignment, Webber began to make comments about Barth's age. For example, Webber stated at several meetings, "Carol is the oldest" or "we know who is the oldest one in the division. Carol Barth." On an occasion when an additional representative had to be hired, Webber stated to another Roche manager that he "would like to hire a young one because he had . . . this time to work with these old ones," referencing Barth and another older employee. Webber also would make various comments about Barth's age to her physician clients, such as asking if they believed Barth was 60. Finally, Webber would make references to Barth being close to retirement age. Barth claims that during Webber's tenure as her manager from 1986 to 1994, he routinely made inappropriate comments about her age.
In the spring of 1994, company rumors began about an impending merger between Roche and Syntex Laboratories, Inc. There was also talk about a reduction in force (RIF) that would be implemented in conjunction with the merger. At a company meeting, managers were directed to give one or two persons from their work group a less favorable or "meets most" rating on their employee evaluations, apparently in connection with the anticipated reduction in force. Webber was under the impression that those with a "meets most" rating on their next performance evaluations would likely be terminated in the RIF. Webber indicated that when his supervisor, Bob Armet, inquired as to the lowest rated person in Webber's group, Webber named a female employee other than Barth. Armet then asked Webber who the next lowest rated person was and Webber named Barth because of her selling skills, noting she had always been rated in the higher "meets all" category. Armet directed Webber to rate Barth a "meets most" rating. Webber asked Armet if Barth would be eligible for a retirement package. Armet responded that if there was a downsizing, Barth would be eligible. Webber proceeded to rate Barth a "meets most" on the next field trip he took with her in 1994.
On July 29, 1994, Barth complained to John Nathan and Betty DeVos in Roche's human resources department about Webber's alleged discrimination. After receiving Barth's complaint (as well as another female employee's complaint against Webber alleging sexual harassment), Roche investigated Webber's alleged conduct. Pursuant to Barth's request, Betty Turrichi, Barth's former supervisor, was present during her August 1994 performance evaluation with Webber. While Webber and Turrichi were waiting
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|