Employee Who Complained Of Discriminatory Bonus Failed To Establish Prima Facie Case Of Retaliation
This case arises out of Cliessa Nagle's resignation from her position as Assistant Controller at RMA in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She began working for RMA in April 2003 with an annual salary of $61,000. Within a year, she received a raise of $4,000, bringing her annual salary to $65,000. In July 2004, Nagle received another raise of $2,000, bringing her annual salary to $67,000. In 2004, she also received a performance bonus of $5,000.
In September 2004, Nagle had a conversation with her supervisor, Dwight Overturf, RMA's CFO and Information Technology Officer, regarding women's. During the discussion, she stated that it is difficult for women “to get paid fairly and paid well.” This conversation was not about RMA specifically or about her personally.
Subsequently, Overturf had another conversation with Nagle regarding a request by RMA's CEO to carefully watch the amount of money spent by the company. During this conversation, she told him that she did not receive credit when she saved the company money. After this second conversation, Overturf sent Nagle an e-mail from his personal e-mail account. The e-mail contained a link to an article about “how to ask your boss for more.” In her response e-mail, Nagle informed Overturf that she had not been aware of how angry she was about not getting credit for all the money she believed she had saved the company until their conversation. She also wrote that she felt there was gender discrimination in the bonus pool among her peers supervised by Overturf, and that she was upset with his evaluation of her work.
Overturf responded that he would discuss her concerns with Florence Wetzel, RMA's human resources officer. Nagle replied via e-mail that she preferred that he not discuss her concerns with Wetzel. Overturf then informed her that she had raised serious issues that merited further discussion. According to Nagle, a normal working environment continued to exist after her e-mail exchanges with Overturf.
On November 18, 2004, Overturf informed Nagle that they would be meeting with Wetzel later that morning. When she asked about the purpose of the meeting, he told her they would be discussing her e-mail regarding her allegations of discrimination in the bonus pool among her peers. The meeting lasted approximately sixty-five minutes. Nagle categorizes the meeting as “heated” and says she felt she was under attack. She left the meeting in tears and went home for the rest of the day.
The following day, Nagle called Wetzel to ask for the necessary paperwork to request family leave. She was absent from work for approximately one month after her physician concluded that she was under “severe emotional distress” and “in need of intensive therapy from a psychiatrist and psychologist with possible hospital stay.”
When Nagle returned to RMA, nothing out of the ordinary occurred other than that she felt that work was more “tense and uncomfortable.” On January 5, 2005, Nagle tendered her resignation because she had accepted employment elsewhere. During the time after the November 18 meeting until she left RMA, no one treated her unprofessionally or discourteously and no one did anything to humiliate, degrade, or intimidate her. In fact, the only time Nagle was harassed, insulted, or threatened with the loss of employment was the November 18 meeting.
Nagle
brought this action against RMA, alleging sexual discrimination, retaliation,
and constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment for RMA,
holding that: (1) Nagle failed to establish a prima facie case of wage
discrimination, absent a showing she was similarly situated to two male
employees who received larger performance bonus for a particular year; (2) Nagle
failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, absent a showing she
suffered an adverse employment action because of her protected activity of
complaining that her bonus was discriminatory; she did not
point to any injury or harm she suffered, other than
her own subjective belief her career was over;
and (3) Nagle was not constructively discharged.
Nagle v. RMA, The Risk Management Ass'n.