Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baron v. Abbott Laboratories

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 15, 2017

CLIVE BARON, Plaintiff,
v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          DuBois, J.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Clive Baron alleges that his former employer, Abbott Laboratories, retaliated against him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), Fla. Stat. §§ 760. 01, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 951, et seq., when it did not reinstate him because he had opposed perceived age discrimination and filed a law suit in this Court in which he asserted claims of age discrimination under the ADEA, FCRA, and PHRA. Clive Baron v. Abbott Laboratories, Civil Action No. 14-4706 (“Baron I”). After consideration of Abbott's Motion for Summary Judgment in Baron I, this Court entered judgment in favor of Abbott and against Baron by Memorandum and Order dated February 17, 2016. 2016 WL 660883 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2016).

         Presently before the Court is Abbott's Motion to Dismiss the single claim of retaliation in the Complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Abbott's Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Clive Baron was employed by defendant Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) from March 2010 until he was terminated by Abbott on December 31, 2013. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 25. At the time of his termination, Baron was 60 years old. Compl. ¶ ¶ 1, 25.

         On May 14, 2014, Baron filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that Abbott had discriminated against him based on his age when he was not considered for a supervisor's position and when it eliminated his position and assigned his responsibilities to younger employees. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 27, 30-31, 36.

         On August 12, 2014, Baron filed a Complaint in Baron I (the “Baron I Complaint”) in this Court, alleging claims of age discrimination by Abbott under the ADEA, FCRA, and PHRA. Compl. ¶ 37.

         Baron learned through discovery in Baron I that, in December 2014, Abbott planned to create a new position with the same with the same responsibilities as Baron's prior position, and that, in February 2015, Abbott hired Richard Lanchantin to fill this position. Compl. ¶¶ 40-41, 49-53.

         On July 31, 2015, Abbott filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Baron I. In support of that Motion, Abbott argued that Baron could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because he had been replaced by Lanchantin, who was 59 years old. Baron I Def. Statement of Facts ¶¶ 55-56; Baron I Def. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 6, 8; Baron I Def. Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 6. In response, Baron argued that he was replaced prior to Lanchantin's hire by two employees who were 6 years and 21 years younger than Baron. Baron I Plff. Mem. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. 1, 5-7 (Baron I Document No. 21, filed Aug. 28, 2015). With respect to Abbott's hiring of Lanchantin, Baron stated that

Then, when Mr. Baron's former position was reinstated about a year after it was temporarily eliminated, Mr. Baron was not even considered for it because he had opposed the age discrimination to which he was subjected and participated in enforcement proceedings to vindicate his rights under the [ADEA, FCRA, and PHRA].
The retaliation to which Mr. Baron was subjected only recently came to light on July 22, 2015, when David Champagne was deposed for a second time after [Abbott Laboratories] concealed the fact that another individual, Richard Lanchantin, was hired into Mr. Baron's identical position in early 2015. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be moving to amend his Complaint to include this retaliation claim.

Baron I Plff. Mem. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. 2. In his Sur Reply, Baron argued that Lanchantin was not his replacement; rather, Lanchantin's hire was evidence that Abbott “was careful in its orchestration of its defense against Baron's claims . . . and retaliated against Baron for opposing the age discrimination to which he was subjected.” Baron I Plff. Sur-Reply 4-5 (Baron I Document No. 27, filed Oct. 8, 2015). Baron never amended the Baron I Complaint to include a claim of retaliation.

         By Memorandum and Order dated February 17, 2016, the Court granted Abbott's Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of Abbott and against Baron in Baron I. The Court concluded “that no reasonable jury could find that [the employees who were 6 and 21 years younger than Baron] ‘replaced' Baron because [they did not] take over Baron's job responsibilities.” Baron I, 2016 WL 660883 at *5. The Court also found that “the employee who replaced Baron was Lanchantin in May 2015” and that the “one-year age gap” between Baron's age at the time of termination and Lanchantin's age at the time of promotion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.