Motion for Summary Judgment in APRIL WHALEY vs. INTERDESIGN, INC., ET AL.| Trellis.Law

On April 14, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between April Whaley Boyce, and Chris Quinn, Interdesign, Inc., James Gallagher, Robert Mountain, for MISCELLANEOUS - OTHER in the District Court of Cuyahoga County.

Preview
Motion No. 5094038

NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Court of Common Pleas

May 31,2023 18:54

By: AMY RYDER WENTZ 0081517

Confirmation Nbr. 2871524

APRIL WHALEY CV 21 946416

vs.
Judge: KEVIN J. KELLEY
INTERDESIGN, INC., ET AL.

Pages Filed: 825

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

APRIL WHALEY BOYCE,

Plaintiff,
Case No. CV-21-946416
v.
Judge Kevin Kelley
INTERDESIGN, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants InterDesign, Inc., Chris Quinn, James Gallagher, and Robert Mountain,

(collectively “Defendants”) through the undersigned counsel and pursuant under Rule 56 of the

Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully move this Honorable Court for an order granting

summary judgment in its favor regarding all of Plaintiff's causes because no genuine issue of

material fact exists, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The reasons and

supporting authority for this Motion are in the attached Memorandum of Law in Support of

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the affidavit of Julie Smith, the deposition transcripts

with cited exhibits of Plaintiff, Julie Smith, James Gallagher, Chris Quinn, Robert Mountain, and

Aaron Taylor.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court grant their Motion

for Summary Judgment in its entirety and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amy Ryder Wentz____________
Amy Ryder Wentz, Bar No. 0081517
awentz@littler. com
Brian P. FitzGerald, Bar No. 0098265
bpfitzgerald@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
Key Tower
127 Public Square
Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114-9612
Telephone: 216.696.7600
Facsimile: 216.696.2038

Attorneys for Defendants
INTERDESIGN, INC., CHRIS QUINN,
JAMES GALLAGHER, AND ROBERT
MOUNTAIN

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 31, 2023, the foregoing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
and Memorandum of Law in Support was electronically filed using the Court's electronic filing
system and served to Plaintiff s counsel, Kathy Vadas, via email. Notice of filing will be performed
by the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access the document through the electronic
filing system.

/s/ Brian P. FitzGerald_____________
Brian P. FitzGerald (0098265)

One of the Attorneys for Defendants
INTERDESIGN, INC., CHRIS QUINN, JAMES
GALLAGHER, AND ROBERT MOUNTAIN

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

APRIL WHALEY BOYCE,

Plaintiff,
Case No. CV-21-946416
v.
Judge Kevin Kelley
INTERDESIGN, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Amy Ryder Wentz (0081517)
Brian P. FitzGerald (0098265)
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Key Tower
127 Public Square
Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: 216.696.7600
Facsimile: 216.696.2038
awentz@littler. com
bpfitzgerald@littler.com

Attorneys for Defendants
INTERDESIGN, INC., CHRIS QUINN,
JAMES GALLAGHER, AND ROBERT
MOUNTAIN

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

I. INTRODUCTION......................................... 1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................... 2

A. InterDesign’s new CEO hires Boyce and a lead product developer........ 2

B. Boyce has mixed success in her role at InterDesign................. 4

1. Boyce demonstrates a lack of leadership skills in 2018........... 4

2. Boyce continues to create work conflicts in 2019.............. 5

3. Boyce fails to improve her behavior in 2020................. 7

C. Boyce voluntarily resigns from InterDesign after applying for and
accepting a higher-paying job with another company................. 8

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS...................................... 9

A. Counts I and IV: Boyce’s gender discrimination claims fail as a matter of
law............................................... 9

1. Boyce’s cannot satisfy her prima facie burden................10

a. Boyce suffered no adverse employment action........... 10

b. InterDesign did not replace Boyce with a male employee
nor treat a similarly situated male more favorably than her... 12

2. InterDesign paid Boyce and Gallagher different salaries for
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.................... 13

3. Boyce’s discrimination claims also fail because she cannot prove
pretext........................................ 13

B. Count II: Boyce’s retaliation claim fails as a matter of law............. 14

C. Count III: Boyce’s hostile work environment claim fails as a matter of
law.............................................. 16

1. No evidence that Mountain’s and Gallagher’s sporadic comments
were severe or pervasive............................ 16

D. Count V: Boyce’s negligent training, retention, and supervision claim fails
as a matter of law..................................... 19

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416-/ Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Page

E. Count VI: Boyce's Ohio public policy claim fails as a matter of law...... 20

F. Even assuming there is an issue of fact on liability, Defendants are entitled
to summary dismissal of Boyce's claims for lost wages.............. 22

IV. CONCLUSION........................................... 23

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946410 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Ames v. Ohio Dept. ofRehab. & Corr.,
10th Dist., 2014-Ohio-4774, 23 N.E.3d 162............................ 13

Balding-Margolis v. Cleveland Arcade,
352 Fed. Appx. 35 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2009)..............................20

Blake v. Beachwood City Schs. Bd. ofEduc.,
8th Dist. No. 95295, 2011-Ohio-1099................................ 13

Boykin v. Mich. Dept. of Corrections,
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7283 (6th Cir. 2000)............................ 17

Breier v. ITTAuto., Inc,
98 Fed. App'x. 458 (6th Cir. 2004).................................. 16

Chapa v. Genpak, LLC,
2014-Ohio-897, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 846............................ 17

Dawson v. AirTouch Cellular,
42 F. Supp. 2d 767 (S.D. Ohio 1999)................................. 19

Douglas v. ABF Freight Sys.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-170, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128201 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20,
2016).................................................... 19

EEOC v. Freemen,
626 F. Supp. 2d 811 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)............................... 22

EEOC v. New York Times Broadcasting Service, Inc.,
542 F.2d 356 (6th Cir. 1976)...................................... 22

Fry v. Wheatland Tube, LLC,
5th Dist. Guernsey, 2019-Ohio-1453, 135 N.E.3d 420 ...................... 15

Grant v. Metro. Gov't,
759 Fed. Appx. 406............................................15

Greer-Burger v. Temesi,
116 Ohio St. 3d 324, 2007-Ohio-6442, 879 N.E.2d 174......................14

Grosjean v. First Energy Corp.
(C.A. 6, 2003), 349 F.3d 332...................................... 12

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
iii.
Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties,
89 Ohio St.3d 169, 2000-Ohio-128, 729 N.E.2d 726........................17

Harter v. Chillicothe Long Term Care, Inc.,
2012 Ohio 2464 (4th Dist. 2012)....................................17

Jackson v. Champaign Nat 'lBank & Trust Co.,
2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4390 (10th Dist. 2000)...........................21

Kelly v. Senior Centers, Inc. ,
169 Fed. Appx. 423 (6th Cir. 2006)................................16, 17

Kenner v. Grant/Riverside Med. Care Found.,
10th Dist. No. 15AP-982, 2017-Ohio-1349, 88 N.E.3d 664 ................... 13

Kepreos v. Alcon Labs., Inc.,
Case No. 1:10-cv-1540, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106346 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21,
2011).................................................... 20

Komac v. Gordon Food Serv. ,
3 F. Supp. 2d 850 (N.D. Ohio 1998)..................................12

Kudla v. Olympic Steel, Inc.,
2014-Ohio-5142 (Cuyahoga Cty. 2014)............................... 10

Leadbetter v. Gilley,
385 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2004)...................................... 13

Lehmier v. W. Res. Chem. Corp.,
9th Dist. No. 28776, 2018-Ohio-3351 ................................ 14

Leininger v. Pioneer Nat'l Latex,
115 Ohio St. 3d 311 (Ohio 2007).................................. 1, 20

Lennon v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court,
2006-Ohio-2587 (Cuyahoga Cty. 2006)............................... 11

Lulaj v. Wackenhut Corp.,
512 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2008)...................................... 22

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
(1973), 411 U.S. 792........................................... 10

Oster v. Huntington Bancshares Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-2746, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76651 (S.D. Ohio May 19,
2017).................................................... 15

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
iv.
Queener v. Windy Hill,
2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5742 (8th Dist. 2001)........................... 18

Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co,
69 Ohio St.2d 66 (1982)......................................... 19

Samadder v. DMF of Ohio, Inc.
(Franklin Cty. 2003), 154 Ohio App.3d 770............................. 10

Saunders v. Greater Dayton Reg'l Transit Auth.,
2021-Ohio-3052 (2nd Dist.)...................................... 14

Schaeffer v. Tractor Supply Co.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58117 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2010)..................... 14

Simmons-Means v. Cuyahoga County Dep't of Justice Affairs,
2006-Ohio-4123............................................. 21

Skalka v. Fernald Envtl. Restoration Mgmt. Corp.,
178 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1999)..................................... 22

Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety,
10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-1073, 2013-Ohio-4210, 997 N.E.2d 597............ 15

Snyder v. City of Lima,
2000 Ohio 1789 (Allen Cty 2000)................................... 11

Stephens v. A-Able Rents, Co.,
101 Ohio App. 3d 20 (8th Dist. 1995)................................ 19

Strock v. Pressnell,
38 Ohio St.3d 207, 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988).............................19

Usaj v. Philips Med. Sys. (Cleveland) Inc.,
2005-Ohio-4132 (8th Dist.)...................................... 21

Valentine v. Westshore Primary Care Ass 'n,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 89999, 2008-Ohio-4450...................... 12

Vitt v. City of Cincinnati,
97 Fed. Appx. 634 (6th Cir. May 20, 2004)............................. 17

Wholf v. Tremco Inc.,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 100771, 2015-Ohio-171, 26 N.E.3d 902............. 14

Wiler v. Kent State Univ.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00490, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197045 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 28,
2022) .................................................... 23

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
v.
Wilson v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
580 Fed. Appx. 395 (6th Cir. 2014).................................. 21

Winfield v. Gates,
Case No. 2:09-CV-244, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128019 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 3,
2010).................................................... 21

Statutes

Ohio R.C. 4112 14, 15, 17

Ohio R.C. 4112.02(I)............................................. 14

Ohio R.C. 4112.02(A)............................................ 10

Ohio R.C. 4112.99.............................................. 22

Ohio R.C. Chapter 4112.......................................... 1, 20

R.C. 4112.054................................................. 18

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
vi.
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, InterDesign, Inc. employed Plaintiff April Whaley Boyce as Vice President of

Marketing from February 26, 2018 until she voluntarily resigned on February 12, 2021 to take a

higher paying job in Florida. During her three years of employment, Boyce received annual salary

increases and generous bonuses. She received mixed performance reviews - while the Company

was pleased with the quality of her work, Boyce struggled to have a good relationship with her

direct reports, peers, supervisors, and key clients. On January 15, 2021, Boyce applied for a job

with a Florida business and accepted an employment offer on February 1, 2021. The job paid

$10,000 more per year than her salary at InterDesign. On February 12, 2021, Boyce notified

InterDesign she was resigning from her employment to accept this position in Florida.

Boyce asserts six employment-related claims, essentially claiming she was discriminated

and harassed because of her sex and retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. Each of

her claims fail as a matter of law, negating a need for a trial:

Count 1: Boyce's sex discrimination claim fails because Boyce suffered no adverse
employment action; no comparators outside her protected class were treated more
favorably; she was not replaced by someone outside her protected class; and there
is no evidence of pretext.

Count 2: Boyce's retaliation claim fails because she did not engage in protected activity; she
suffered no adverse employment action; and there is no evidence of pretext.

Count 3: Boyce's harassment claim fails because she has no evidence her work environment
was permeated with severe or pervasive harassment based on her sex.

Count 4: Boyce's wage-based sex discrimination claim fails because she has no evidence
that similarly situated male employees were paid more than Boyce.

Count 5: Plaintiffs negligent training, retention, and supervision claim fails because Boyce
cannot establish an independent tort against the individually named defendants.

Count 6: Boyce's wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim is not a cognizable
claim under Leininger v. Pioneer Nat'lLatex, 115 Ohio St. 3d 311 (Ohio 2007) and
because Boyce was not discharged - she voluntarily resigned from her employment.

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. InterDesign’s new CEO hires Boyce and a lead product developer.

InterDesign is a privately held product design company headquartered in Solon, Ohio. The

Company employs 240 employees and designs and manufactures innovated storage products for

the home. (Smith Tr. 15; Smith Aff. ^3). In July 2017, the owner of InterDesign hired Chris Quinn

to become the Company's first President and CEO. (Quinn Tr. 11, 16; Smith Tr. 15, 24, 38). Quinn

implemented a series of organizational transformations, including the creation of an Executive

Leadership Team. (Quinn Tr. 12). Quinn identified the need for a lead product developer position.

(Smith Tr. 134-135). In November 2017, the Company hired James Gallagher for this role, with

the title Executive Vice President, Creative. (Smith Tr. 60; Smith Aff. ^4). Quinn was drawn to

Gallagher's education and professional background. Gallagher earned a Bachelor of Science

degree in industrial design from the University of Cincinnati, and he had product development and

leadership experience at home furnishing companies with international footprints, including 16

years of experience at Target and Pottery Barn. (Gallagher Tr. 10; Ex. A). In his new role with

InterDesign, Gallagher was responsible for overseeing the Company's entire global engineering

and development team, which included a team of approximately 33 professionals and $100 million

dollars in revenue and budget management. (Gallagher Tr. 26-27). Under Gallagher's leadership,

InterDesign's design and development team created and developed InterDesign's houseware

products, including home organizational products, performing all of the engineering and product

design which gave birth to the Company's products. (Quinn Tr. 15, 92). InterDesign offered

Gallagher a starting salary of $250,000, plus a $35,000 sign on bonus, 20% bonus eligibility, and

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
eligibility for a Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”).1 (Smith Aff. ^6). This offer was a 25%

increase from his base salary at Pottery Barn because the Company realized it was critical to hire

an expert in the field of houseware consumer products, like Gallagher. (Smith Tr. 134-135;

Gallagher Tr. 62). In December 2017, Gallagher relocated to Ohio from California to start with

InterDesign, reporting to Quinn. (Gallagher Tr. 6, 26-27; Smith Tr. 130-131).

Quinn continued to identify new roles for his Executive Leadership Team, including the

position of Vice President, Marketing. (Smith Tr. 142-143). Given the infancy of InterDesign’s

marketing program, Quinn looked to hire someone early in their marketing career who could grow

with the business and quickly accomplish results. (Boyce Tr. 39). Quinn recruited and hired Boyce

for the position - the two previously worked together at the Clorox Company for five years. (Boyce

Tr. 32, 39; Quinn Tr. 13-14). Although Boyce had no experience with houseware product design

and minimal marketing experience, Quinn believed she would grow into the position. (Boyce Tr.

38). Boyce was first responsible for managing the Company’s social media strategy; her

responsibilities later expanded to overseeing packaging at Gallagher’s recommendation.

(Gallagher Tr. 28, 44). Although she had no direct reports when first hired, she eventually

supervised a team of approximately ten employees. (Gallagher Tr. 39; Ex. C). Quinn offered and

2 - a 29% increase over her prior salary - plus
Boyce accepted a starting annual salary of $155,0001

25% bonus eligibility and $25,000 in moving expenses. (Boyce Tr. 44-45; Ex. 3). Boyce relocated

from Florida to Ohio and began her employment on February 26, 2018, reporting to Quinn. (Boyce

1 The LTIP is a Plan designed to advance the performance and long-term growth of the Company by offering long
term incentives to employees of the Company and is also intended to facilitate recruiting and retaining senior
management of outstanding ability. (Quinn Tr. 81-83; Ex. N)
2 In determining the starting salary of Gallagher’s and Boyce’s positions, Quinn worked with Smith, with the assistance
of a benchmarking compensation platform to ensure the Company utilized a robust comparative process for
determining salaries. (Quinn Tr. 24; Smith Tr. 117-120, 161-164). Specific to Boyce’s position, Quinn utilized
benchmarking compensation information provided by Human Resources with the goal of paying Boyce substantive
above the mean for a leader of Marketing. (Quinn Tr. 90-91; Smith Tr. 168).

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
Tr. 43, 45). Boyce left a Team Leader of Integrated Marketing and Shopper Engagement position

at Schwan's Consumer Brands - so the Vice President of Marketing role at InterDesign was a

substantial boost in title, responsibilities, and compensation. (Boyce Tr. 28, 36; Ex. 1).

B. Boyce has mixed success in her role at InterDesign.

1. Boyce demonstrates a lack of leadership skills in 2018.

At the time of her hiring, Boyce received and reviewed the Company's Employee

Handbook, which included policies involving diversity, inclusion, and equal employment

opportunity. (Boyce Tr. 45-46; Ex. 4). Boyce also received and reviewed the Company's Code of

Conduct policy and knew how to report violations of Company policy.3 (Boyce Tr. 47-49; Ex. 5).

As part of Quinn's commitment to workplace transparency, he introduced a platform called

Lighthouse, a third-party administrator that operated a hotline for employees to call and make

complaints (anonymous or otherwise) about workplace issues.4 (Quinn Tr. 29; Smith Tr. 48-52,

189-190). Further, as part of his ongoing commitment to collaboration and executive leadership,

Quinn retained Executive Coach Joy McCarthy to provide executive coaching services to

InterDesign's executive leadership team. (Boyce Tr. 53). Boyce recalls she met with McCarthy

from 2018 through 2019 to sharpen her executive leadership skills. (Boyce Tr. 53-54).

Beginning in the spring of 2018, Boyce and Gallagher clashed on work projects. For

example, the two disagreed on the timing of Gallagher's team to meet development goals.

(Gallagher Tr. 30-31; Quinn Tr. 43). While Gallagher tried to explain the intricacies of product

development and how related timelines are often delayed, Boyce, who had no experience with

consumer product development, rebuffed Gallagher's explanation. (Gallagher Tr. 31). Gallagher

3 Boyce confirmed never using this method to report any violations. (Boyce Tr. 49).
4 Once a report is generated from Lighthouse, it is sent to Human Resources for review, and depending on the nature
of the complaint, the Company launches an investigation. (Smith Tr. 192).

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
4
was not the only employee who experienced a challenging relationship with Boyce - those

problems extended to her own team in less than four months on the job. In a June 2018 exit

interview, Boyce's former team member, Katie Reilly, shared examples of Boyce's inappropriate

behavior directed at her and another team member, Sylvia Smith. (Boyce Tr. 54-58; Ex. 6). For

instance, at a meeting, Boyce described one employee's work product as “crap” and a “disaster”

to that employee's peer. (Id). Boyce also inappropriately criticized a direct report in a meeting and

told her to “just stop talking I'm talking now.” (Id.; Quinn Tr. 35-36). Human Resources launched

an investigation which confirmed Boyce's inappropriate behavior involving harassing and

manipulating behavior and poor management skills. (Id.). Quinn and Smith met with Boyce to

discuss the finding of their investigation, and Boyce denied all responsibility. (Quinn Tr. 41).

2. Boyce continues to create work conflicts in 2019.

On January 1, 2019, Boyce received a pay increase from $155,000 to $162,750 plus a 25%

target bonus. (Boyce Tr. 63). Two months later, the Company demonstrated its long-term

commitment to Boyce by issuing her a LTIP award with a value of $89,513 (55% of Boyce's base

salary). (Boyce Tr. 66-68; Ex. 9).

In 2019, the Company hired Executive Coach Simon Ellet to work with Boyce and

Gallagher to enhance their leadership skills. (Boyce Tr. 149-151; Quinn Tr. 54, 57-58). Despite

access to a second coach, the Company continued to receive numerous employee complaints about

Boyce throughout the year.

• February 9, 2019: Boyce became aggressive and engaged in name calling (after a
few glasses of wine) in front of Quinn and another Executive Team member Roger
Ley. (Quinn Tr. 43, Ex. F).

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
• June 4-5, 2019: Boyce, Gallagher, Mountain, and other team members engaged in
uncomfortable meetings in which all individuals requested the assistance of Quinn
to resolve a dispute.5 (Quinn Tr. 51, Ex. G).

• June 2019: Boyce condemned a key InterDesign client for not attending a dinner,
putting the Company's relationship with this client at risk. (Quinn Tr. 51, Ex. G).

• June 6, 2019: Members of Gallagher's team made complaints about Boyce's tone
and personal attacks during a meeting at which she accused the team members of
not performing their jobs. (Boyce Tr. 69, Ex. 11).

• September 4, 2019: Trade Show Coordinator, Kelley Bugara, complained to
Human Resources that Boyce was making her life at work “hell” and that Boyce's
behavior was creating a hostile environment. (Boyce Tr. 75-76, 79-80; Ex. 12).

• September 6, 2019: An employee made an anonymous complaint through t
Lighthouse about Boyce's “condescending, demeaning and explosive” behavior
has created “a toxic, hostile and bully environment with her team and other depts.”
(Boyce Tr. 77; Ex. 13).

• September 2019: Employees complained (1) Boyce referred to Gallagher's “full six
inches” (a reference to his penis) in a meeting; and (2) she initiated an offensive
game of “marry, fuck, kill” with her direct reports after the funeral of a co-worker's
father. (Id.; Mountain Tr. 83; Smith Tr. 54-57; Quinn Tr. 62-63).

• December 2019: Boyce sent a direct report an offensive holiday card. (Boyce Tr.
119-121; Ex. 18).

In addition to these leadership challenges, Boyce also struggled with receiving peer-to-peer

feedback and constructive criticism, inhibiting her ability to participate in executive level

conversations. (Taylor Tr. 35-36, 39). For instance, on June 4, 2019, Gallagher and Mountain

provided feedback to Boyce about her marketing strategy of a new product, but Boyce interpreted

their feedback as a personal attack on her. (Taylor Tr. 39-43; Ex. B). As a result of the numerous

complaints about Boyce, as well as the fallout from Boyce's June 6, 2019 meeting with Gallagher's

team, the Company created in October 2019 a Collaboration & Leadership Survey for Boyce's and

5 Following these meetings, Gallagher invited Plaintiff to lunch to resolve their conflict. (Gallagher Tr. 36). From
Gallagher's perspective, the meeting established a closer partnership, empathy and understanding for each other.
(Gallagher Tr. 37).

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
6
Gallagher’s team to anonymously provide feedback on Boyce's and Gallagher’s leadership. (Smith

Tr. 176-177, 190-193; Ex. 16). Members of Gallagher’s team described Boyce as abrupt,

condescending, intimidating in meetings. (Id). After the team members submitted their Surveys,

of which only 54% of Boyce’s team participated compared to 92% of Gallagher’s team, Quinn

and Smith met separately with Boyce and Gallagher to discuss the results. (Boyce Tr. 80-81, 87;

Ex. 14-15). While Gallagher was receptive to the constructive feedback he received at his meeting,

Boyce became agitated and refused to accept responsibility, like she had done in prior meetings

with Quinn and Smith. (Smith Tr. 184-186).

Because of the Survey results, Quinn re-assigned Boyce to report with Mountain on

October 14, 2019 because Mountain could provide Boyce with more hands-on supervision. (Boyce

Tr. 92-93, 118; Quinn Tr. 76; Mountain Tr. 27-28, 77). This re-assignment of supervision did not

affect Boyce’s pay, job title, responsibilities, or direct reports. (Boyce Tr. 90-96). Quinn also

instructed Gallagher and Boyce to continue meeting with the executive coach. (Quinn Tr. 57-60).

On November 12, 2019, Mountain met with Plaintiff to discuss employee complaints

against her, including her rudeness and condescending approach to communicating with

employees and clients. (Mountain Tr. 39-40, 78-79; Ex. 17). While Mountain attempted to mentor

Boyce, Boyce’s performance and behavior failed to improve. (Mountain Tr. 75-76). In Boyce’s

2019 performance evaluation, Quinn and Mountain noted Boyce needed to “improve in her ability

to collaborate and focus on issues not the people. Respect others’ opinions even when you don’t

agree.” (Boyce Tr. 124-126; Ex. 20)

3. Boyce fails to improve her behavior in 2020.

Despite Boyce’s substantial challenges collaborating and communicating with her co

workers, in 2020, the Company increased Boyce’s base salary to $175,000 and issued her a second

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
LTIP award for $54,603, further demonstrating the Company's long-term commitment to Plaintiff.

(Boyce Tr. 123, 126-127, 133-134; Ex. 21).

As in 2018 and 2019, Boyce continued to disrupt the workplace and jeopardize customer

relationships in 2020:

• January 2020: Boyce badgered her colleague, Aaron Taylor, about his
compensation and disclosed to him that other members on the executive leadership
team were receiving LTIPs while he was not. (Taylor Tr. 51; Ex. D).

• March-April 2020: The Company's largest client, The Home Edit, complained to
Gallagher and Mountain about Boyce's “defensive and inappropriate” behavior;
Gallagher and Mountain were forced to intervene to salvage the relationship.
(Boyce Tr. 129; Ex. 22; Mountain Tr. 53-55).

• In 2020, Boyce commented to colleagues that an employee participating in a photo
shoot looked like a “whore”. (Taylor Tr. 47).

• In 2020, Boyce used marijuana in front of Taylor during the workday. (Taylor Tr.
47; Smith Tr. 72-73).

In only three years of employment, the Company received no less than 11 employee

complaints about Boyce, significantly more than any other manager. (Smith Aff. ^8). For her third

year in a row, Boyce's Performance Review noted she needed to continue to “proactively initiate

discussions, meetings, etc. and collaborate to fix and solve the issue on a real time basis given its

criticality.” (Boyce Tr. 135-136; Ex. 25).

C. Boyce voluntarily resigns from InterDesign after applying for and accepting a
higher-paying job with another company.

In December 2020, Boyce made a down payment to begin construction of a new home in

Florida. (Boyce Tr. 25, 139). On January 15, 2021, Boyce submitted a job application for a position

at Hans-Mill Corporation, also in Florida. (Boyce Tr. 138; Ex. 26). Forecasting her intent to resign

from the Company, in her job application, Boyce informed Hans-Mill Corporation she intended to

be available for work beginning on April 1, 2021. (Id) On February 1, 2021, Boyce accepted a

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
8
job offer as Vice President of Marketing and Branding at Hans-Mill's Jacksonville, Florida

location. (Boyce Tr. 140-142; Ex. 27). Boyce's starting salary with Hans-Mill was $185,000

(following a 90-day probationary period), a $10,000 increase from her salary at InterDesign. (Id.).

On February 12, 2021, the day Boyce received her 2020 bonus from InterDesign, Boyce

informed Quinn by telephone she was resigning from the Company.6 (Boyce Tr. 12, 142, 185, 189;

Ex. 30). After speaking with Quinn, Boyce sent a text message and called her colleague and friend

Aaron Taylor to inform him she had resigned from the Company. (Taylor Tr. 49-50; Ex. C). Quinn

attempted to change Boyce's mind about resigning and offered her, in an attempt to retain her, a

promotion to Senior Vice Present, Marketing and an increase to her base salary of $190,000 with

a 30% target bonus. Boyce responded by sending Quinn a text that said “Thanks Chris. $190k is a

good offer for a woman like me”, but she did not change her mind. (Quinn Tr. 89-90; Ex. O). On

February 13, 2021, Quinn emailed Boyce to confirm his acceptance of her voluntary resignation.

(Boyce Tr. 195-197; Ex. 31). After her resignation, Taylor absorbed Boyce's duties. (Quinn Tr.

23).

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Counts I and IV: Boyce’s gender discrimination claims fail as a matter of law

Boyce asserts as the basis for her sex discrimination claims that Defendants subjected her

to “constant inappropriate name-calling, ridicule, humiliation, and discrimination” because she is

a woman (Count I), and paid male employees “with similar educations, experience, and

professional responsibilities . . . more than Boyce” (Count IV).7 (Compl. ^61-62, 85). To establish

aprimafacie case of gender discrimination under Ohio R.C. 4112.02(A), Boyce must demonstrate,

6 After Boyce's resignation, she only worked approximately three months at Hans-Mill before voluntarily resigning.
(Boyce Tr. 164-167).
7 Boyce's first cause of action is nearly identical to Plaintiff's third cause of action for hostile work environment,
where a thorough analysis of that theory is addressed.

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
9
among other factors, she suffered an adverse employment action and either InterDesign replaced

her with a male or treated a similarly situated male peer more favorably. Samadder v. DMF of

Ohio, Inc. (Franklin Cty. 2003), 154 Ohio App.3d 770, 780 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, 802). If Boyce can establish a prima facie case of gender

discrimination, the burden shifts to Defendants to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory

reason for their action. Id. If Defendants carry this burden, then Boyce must offer evidence that

Defendants’ reasons for the alleged adverse actions are a pretext for discrimination. Id.

Both of Boyce’s gender discrimination claims fail because Boyce (1) experienced no

adverse employment action; (2) has no evidence Defendants treated a similarly situated male

employee more favorably than her or that InterDesign replaced her by someone outside her

protected class; and (3) cannot prove pretext.

1. Boyce’s cannot satisfy her prima facie burden.

a. Boyce suffered no adverse employment action.

[A]n adverse employment action is a materially adverse change in the terms and
conditions of the plaintiff's employment. Adverse employment actions include any
“significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote,
reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a
significant change in benefits.”

Kudla v. Olympic Steel, Inc, 2014-Ohio-5142, ‘'48 (Cuyahoga Cty. 2014). Boyce did not suffer an

adverse employment action, and she has no evidence to prove otherwise. The Company did not

terminate her employment - Boyce resigned. (Boyce Tr. 12, 142, 185, 189, 195-197; Ex. 30, 31;

Taylor Tr. 49-50; Ex. C). The Company did not refuse to promote her, diminish her job

responsibilities, or reduce her compensation package. To the contrary, the record is undisputed

that Quinn recruited Boyce and offered her a salary nearly 30% higher than she was earning at her

previous employer. (Boyce Tr. 44-45; Ex. 3). The Company invested in her professional

development by providing her two executive coaches. And the Company provided her generous

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
10
raises each year, including LTIP bonuses, further demonstrating its interest in their long-term

employment relationship. (Boyce Tr. 66-68, 123, 126-127, 133-134; Ex. 9, 21). The absence of

evidence of an adverse employment action is dispositive of Count I of Plaintiff's complaint,

negating any need for a trial on the claim. See Lennon v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, 2006-

Ohio-2587, ^18 (Cuyahoga Cty. 2006) (affirming summary dismissal of the plaintiffs

discrimination claim because she proffered no evidence of an adverse employment action).

To demonstrate an adverse employment action for Count IV, Boyce must have evidence

that InterDesign paid a higher salary to a male employee who performed substantially equal work.

Snyder v. City of Lima, 2000 Ohio 1789, ^11 (Allen Cty 2000). Boyce likewise has no such

evidence. She purports to compare herself to Gallagher - but no reasonable juror could find they

are similarly situated give the undisputed evidence regarding their respective experience,

education, and job responsibilities. Gallagher’s job responsibilities were substantially greater and

more demanding compared to Boyce’s responsibilities. (Quinn Tr. 92-93). Gallagher led the entire

product development team of 33 employees and managed a department responsible for $100

million in profit and loss for the Company, including $5 million in operating expenses. (Gallagher

Tr. 27, 42-43) By contrast, Boyce oversaw marketing for the products Gallagher’s team designed

with a team one-third the size of Gallagher’s. And her annual budget was a fraction of Gallagher’s,

at $750,000, although she did not have the authority to oversee that budget independently - she

shared that responsibility with Quinn. (Gallagher Tr. 28-29; Mountain Tr. 70; Smith Aff. ^7). They

also did not have comparable work experience; Gallagher had over 17 years of product design and

leadership experience at major brands, such as Target and Pottery Barn, while Boyce worked in

sales roles with limited marketing responsibilities with little to no leadership experience. (Boyce

Tr. 29; Ex. 1; Gallagher Tr. 10; Ex. A) They also did not share comparable educational experience.

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
11
Gallagher earned an impressive five-year industrial engineering degree from one the country's top

programs for industrial design, and Boyce did not. (Boyce Tr. 29, 105, 195; Ex. 1; Gallagher Tr.

10, 26-27, Ex. A; Smith Tr. 145; Quinn Tr. 92, 94-97). Thus, no jury could reasonably conclude

that Gallagher and Boyce performed substantially similar work for different rates of pay, which is

dispositive of Count IV of Boyce's Complaint. See Komac v. Gordon FoodServ., 3 F. Supp. 2d

850, 856-857 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (granting summary judgment on the plaintiffs wage

discrimination claim because the plaintiff was not similarly situated to the purported comparator

as they held different positions, levels of experience, and job responsibilities).

b. InterDesign did not replace Boyce with a male employee nor
treat a similarly situated male more favorably than her.

Even if Boyce suffered an adverse employment action, she still cannot satisfy her prima

facie burden of sex discrimination because she has no evidence that either: (1) a male employee

replaced her; or (2) Defendants treated similarly situated male employees more favorably than

Boyce.

After Boyce resigned, no one replaced her in the role of Vice President, Marketing, and the

position remains unfilled. (Quinn Tr. 22-23). Instead, Taylor absorbed the duties, and

“[a]ssumption of duties does not constitute replacement.” Valentine v. Westshore Primary Care

Ass'n, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 89999, 2008-Ohio-4450, ^86 (citing Grosjean v. First Energy

Corp. (C.A. 6, 2003), 349 F.3d 332, 335-336).

Further, Boyce has no evidence that Defendants treated any similarly situated male

employees more favorably than Boyce. Where a plaintiff in a discrimination claim contends his or

her employer provided more favorable treatment to a non-protected similarly situated person, “the

individual with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare [his or] her treatment must be similar in all

relevant respects.” Kenner v. Grant/Riverside Med. Care Found., 10th Dist. No. 15AP-982, 2017-

Electronically Filed 05/31/2023 18:54 / MOTION / CV 21 946416 / Confirmation Nbr. 2871524 / CLCEJ
12
Ohio-1349, ^33, 88 N.E.3d 664, citing Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist., 2014-

Ohio-4774, ‘'42, 23 N.E.3d 162. To be similarly situated comparator “must have dealt with the

same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct

without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or

the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Blake v. Beachwood City Schs. Bd. of Educ., 8th Dist.

No. 95295, 2011-Ohio-1099, ^26. “Differences in job title, responsibilities, experience, and work

record can be used to determine whether two employees are similarly situated.” Leadbetter v.

Gilley, 385 F.3d 683, 691 (6th Cir. 2004). Boyce claims Gallagher was similarly situated but

treated more favorably because he earned more money. For the reasons stated above, the

undisputed evidentiary record precludes Boyce from demonstrating that she and Gallagher

performed substantially similar work for different rates of pay.

2. InterDesign paid Boyce and Gallagher different salaries for legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons

InterDesign compensated Gallagher with a salary higher than Boyce’s because of his prior

compensation history, educational background, professional experience, and job responsibilities,

including managing InterDesign’s entire product development department, managing a $5 million

operating budget, and supervising a team of 33 employees. (Smith Tr. 134-135; Quinn Tr. 15, 92,

94-97). Defendants have satisfied their burden to rebut Plaintiff’s prima facie gender

discrimination claims.

3. Boyce’s discrimination claims also fail because she cannot prove
pretext.

To overcome summary judgment

Case Info

Judge

JOSEPH D RUSSO Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 31, 2023

Case Filing Date

April 14, 2021

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: APRIL WHALEY vs. INTERDESIGN, INC., ET AL.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties