 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Champaign National Bank & Trust Co.9/26/2000
her evaluation, demotion and discharge were the product of disparate treatment, appellant compares herself to David Marbary, Steve Goodwin, Jim Marable and Roger File.
Marbary, a bank vice president who was responsible for generating agricultural loans, received an "above expected" rating in 1997. However, appellant and Marbary were dissimilar in at least two respects. First, Marbary had reported to Bostelman in November 1997, that Marbary was on target to meet his $14 million loan goal in 1997. Although appellant argues that data generated in January 1998 demonstrated that Marbary actually missed his goal, the undisputed evidence indicates that, at the time Bostelman completed the evaluations, he thought that Marbary would make his personal goal target. Second, Bostelman noted in his evaluation that Marbary had taken issue with the personal goal target and that Marbary's goal had been set unilaterally by the former head of the lending division. Although appellant now claims that her 1997 goal was also unfair, she did not raise this allegation until after she filed her lawsuit. Steve Goodwin, who received an "as expected" rating, also had informed Marbary that he was on target to meet his personal goals. Jim Marable was evaluated as "exceeded expectation," but he had not been given any personal goals for 1997. Roger File received a "superior" rating in 1997, but appellant admitted that File "is the golden boy. He does a good job." (See Jackson Depo. at 179.)
The undisputed evidence therefore establishes that, as of the date that Bostelman completed his performance evaluations, only appellant had reported that she was not on target to achieve the goals on her list. The fact that she and Bostelman disagreed whether the $12 million goal was a personal goal or a bank-wide goal is not material, nor is the fact that Bostelman relied on his subordinates' self-reporting appraisals in rating performance, even if those appraisals were erroneous. A plaintiff "does not raise a material issue of fact on the question of the quality of work merely by challenging the judgment of supervisors." McDonald v. Union Camp Corp. (C.A.6, 1990), 898 F.2d 1155, 1160. Even when the evidence is construed in her favor, appellant has failed to establish that she was treated differently than similarly-situated men.
Appellant also alleged discriminatory treatment with regard to her alleged demotion from Business Banking Officer to Consumer Lender. There is no evidence that the alleged demotion ever came to fruition; appellant's salary and benefits were not reduced. Even if appellant had been reclassified, however, she failed to offer any evidence that she was treated differently from similarly-situated men. It is undisputed that, in contrast with other Business Banking Officers, appellant generated the bulk of her business from consumer lending.
The portion of appellant's gender discrimination claim based on constructive discharge fails for additional reasons. Discriminatory constructive discharge occurs only when an employer, with discriminatory intent, makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign. Mauzy, at 588-589; Neal v. Hamilton Cty. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 670, 676. In applying this test, the court must determine whether the cumulative effect of the employer's actions would make a reasonable person believe that termination was imminent. Mauzy, at 589. "Part of an employee's obligation to be reasonable is an obligation not to assume the worst, and not to jump to conclusions too fast." (Emphasis sic.) Garner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (C.A.11, 1987), 807 F.2d 1536, 1539.
Appellant provided no evidence th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|