News
Defense Verdict: January 11, 2006
Woghiren v. Wyeth and Wyeth Biopharma
United States District Court, Massachusetts (Young, W.)
1:04-cv-12148WGY

Type of Action: Employment Discrimination (Race) and Retaliation
Injuries Alleged: Lost Wages and Benefits / Emotional Distress

Plaintiff was an African-American scientist with a PhD in Analytical Chemistry, and had the position of Principal Scientist in the Analytical Science and Technology (“AS&T”) group at Wyeth’s Andover, Massachusetts facility, having transferred there in late 2001 from the Company’s Pearl River, New York location where he had worked since 1996. During his tenure at the Pearl River facility, the plaintiff had received generally favorable employment evaluations.

In early 2002 and just a few months after the plaintiff transferred to Andover, his manager left the company, whereupon the plaintiff applied for the open position of Associate Director of the AS&T group. He was interviewed, but denied the position, as was one of his Caucasian colleagues who had more experience and a higher salary grade level. Wyeth had simultaneously sought external candidates for the position, and in late 2002 ultimately hired a Caucasian female to lead the AS&T group - in the process upgrading the position to one of Director.

In 2003, frictions developed between the plaintiff and his new Director. The plaintiff’s 2003 annual evaluation was rendered by the Director, and he received a grade of “meets expectations,” which was lower than his 2002 grade of “exceeds expectations.” In January of 2004, the Director reorganized the AS&T group, and in the process removed the plaintiff from his previous duties as supervising a number of other scientists in the AS&T group. The plaintiff considered this a “demotion,” even though he sustained no reduction in pay or benefits. Thereafter, however, he was given the lead role in a technology transfer from another Wyeth facility, but his Director determined that he had performed poorly on this project. In April of 2004, the plaintiff was placed on a “Performance Improvement Plan,” (PIP), and given a series of objectives to meet. He immediately filed a claim with the MCAD alleging unlawful discrimination based upon his race and ethnic background. Ultimately, the plaintiff was terminated in September of 2004 and thereafter added a claim of retaliation.

During depositions and discovery, as well as later at trial, the plaintiff contended that although not a direct element of his claim, the failure to hire him for the Assistant Director position of the AS&T group was a deviation from Wyeth’s past customary practice of “promoting from within,” and background evidence of a pattern of discrimination. He also contended that the 2004 AS&T group reorganization was undertaken for the sole purpose of “demoting” him from his supervisory and management responsibilities. In addition, he contended that his being assigned to lead the technology transfer in early 2004 was done to “set him up to fail,” and that contrary to the Director’s assessment, he had performed quite effectively on that project. He also named during discovery and on cross-examination at trial, a number of his former colleagues who would testify as to the numerous instances of unlawful disparate treatment that he, and other non-Caucasian staff, had been subjected to by the Director.

Conversely, in addition to testimony by the AS&T group’s Director, all of the plaintiff’s former colleagues (which included Caucasian and non-Caucasian employees) that he had named as persons who would confirm his contentions of discrimination were called to testify at the trial of the action. Each of them gave testimony that was consistent with the performance deficiencies noted by the Director in her 2003 performance evaluation of the plaintiff, and in her copious notes that detailed his subsequent performance issues. Testimony was also given by Wyeth’s former HR representative who had been involved in the administration of the plaintiff’s PIP, and it established that all of the Company’s processes and procedures had been followed without exception. The plaintiff’s prior employment evaluations were distilled so that certain comments that had manifested themselves in years prior to his tenure at Andover could be demonstrated as falling within a pattern of performance issues that ultimately became more pronounced in 2003 and 2004. Additional evidence was submitted by way of a comparative chart, which illustrated that the Director’s 2003 grades of all members of the AS&T group did not evidence any pattern of her being harsher on non-Caucasian members of her staff.

After two hours of deliberations, the jury of 12, comprised of Caucasian and African-American members, returned a verdict in Wyeth’s favor on both the discrimination and retaliation claims.