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.

Nielson v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association

United States District Court, D. Utah

January 15, 2019

STANFORD NIELSON, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL. Defendants.

          District Judge Dee Benson

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DUSTIN B PEAD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Introduction

         This matter was referred to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (See ECF No. 12.) On January 27, 2014, Mr. Nielson (“Plaintiff”) filed, pro se, a complaint against his former employer, Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”) and former supervisors, in relevant part, Phillip Meeks (“Mr. Meeks”) and Brent Scherzinger (“Mr. Scherzinger”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Mr. Nielson then amended his complaint on January 28, 2014 and again on February 24. 2015. (See ECF Nos. 2, 23.) The second amended complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§612- 634; (2) violation of the Utah Antidiscrimination Act, Utah Code Ann. § 34A-5-101 through -108; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See Second Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 23.)

         In August of 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as to defendants Wells Fargo and another supervisor but not as to Mr. Meeks and Mr. Scherzinger. (See ECF No. 45.) Currently, Defendants' seek to dispose of all three causes of action. The motions pending before the court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74), Defendants' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 83), and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 93).

         The court has carefully reviewed the moving papers submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on the basis of the written papers. See DUCivR 7-1(f). For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS the District Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment thereby mooting the remaining matters.

         Summary of Undisputed Facts

         In October of 2011, Defendants hired Plaintiff to serve as Senior Business Relationship Manager reporting to Gary Havens (“Mr. Havens”). (See Am. Compl. at 3; Amended Answer to Second Amended Complaint (“Answer”), EFC No. 53 at 4; see also, Offer of Employment Letter, ECF No. 74-1 at 16.) After a little over a year of employment, Plaintiff received a promotion. (See Am. Compl. at 3; Answer at 4.) Near the end of 2012, Plaintiff's immediate manager Mr. Havens transitioned to another position and his ten team members were equally reassigned between Mr. Meeks' and another manager. (See ECF No. 74-1 at 87.)

         At this time, Plaintiff and another individual (out of those who transitioned to Mr. Meeks' team) were the only two bankers over the age of 40. (See Am. Compl. at 4; Answer at 4; see also ECF No. 74-1 at 87-8.) In January of 2013, Plaintiff received a satisfactory performance review and a salary increase. (See Am. Compl. at 4; Answer at 4.) Despite this, it was known to Mr. Meeks that Plaintiff's performance “ranked near the bottom” of the five team members who transitioned his team. (ECF No. 74-1 at 88.) Purportedly, this information was gleaned because each team member's outstanding loan and deposit balances were considered at the time of transition. (Id. at 87.)

         Close in time with the reassignment of Plaintiff to Mr. Meeks' team, there were two openings for two Business Banking Managers, one of whom would oversee Mr. Meek's team. (See ECF No. 74-1 at 87-8.) In approximately February of 2013, Mr. Scherzinger was selected to fill the position reporting to Mr. Meeks, meaning he would also serve as Plaintiff's direct supervisor. (See Am. Compl. at 4; Answer at 4.)

         In late February, 2013, Mr. Scherzinger received a call from a private banker regarding Plaintiff's poor performance. (See ECF No. 74-1 at 88.) On March 5, 2013, Mr. Meeks and Mr. Scherzinger met with Plaintiff to discuss his poor performance. (Id.) Mr. Meeks and Mr. Scherzinger considered Plaintiff to have been placed on informal warning at this time due to his poor customer service and lack of follow through with job duties. (Id.; see also ECF No. 74-1 at 13.) At the time, this level of corrective action appeared appropriate. (Id.)

         After Plaintiff received the informal warning, Mr. Scherzinger continued to receive complaints about Plaintiff's deficient performance. (See ECF No. 74-1 at 89.) In response, Mr. Scherzinger issued a written formal warning to Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 74-1 at 66.) By way of the formal warning, Plaintiff was notified that he had until April 30, 2013 to meet the performance standards required of his job. (Id. at 67.) He was further notified that if he failed to “show immediate and sustained improvement in all performance standards and work expectations” then he could face termination. (Id. at 68.)

         To ensure he was meeting the objectives set forth in the formal warning, Plaintiff and Mr. Scherzinger met almost each week to discuss his performance. (See ECF No. 74-1 at 89.) Mr. Scherzinger followed-up each meeting with emails to Plaintiff regarding his performance and completion of tasks. (See e.g. ECF No. 74-1- at 56-60.) According to Mr. Scherzinger's emails, Plaintiff continued to miss deadlines and struggle with customer service. (Id.) Consequently, Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment on May 17, 2013. (See ECF No.74-1 at 55.) After seeking administrative relief by filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging, in relevant part, age discrimination, Plaintiff commenced this action in federal court. (See ECF Nos. 1, 74-1 at 87.) On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendants. (See ECF No. 74 ...


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.