Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Nathan v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc.

Nathan v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division

August 24, 2012, Decided; August 24, 2012, Filed

Case No. 1:11-cv-1360 (AJT/TRJ)

Opinion

 [*632]  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Noah Nathan ("Nathan") claims that because of his child-care duties, defendants Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Takeda") discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment, and also retaliated against him for complaining about his mistreatment, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. This matter is before the Court on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants defendants' motion.

 [*633]  I. FACTS. 1

Nathan began his employment with Takeda in 2002 and became a specialty sales representative in 2004, the position he held at the time that Takeda engaged in the allegedly illegal conduct. As a specialty sale representative, his job was to promote the sale of Takeda pharmaceuticals to health professionals. As a part of his duties, he was required to spend most of his time visiting various medical offices in his territory in order to provide health care professionals with information about drugs that Takeda manufactures. For this reason, specialty sales representatives work "in the field" and also from their home offices.

Specialty sales representatives are supervised by district managers, who, among other activities, participate in "ride along" days where they accompany a sales representative during his customer visits in order  [**3] to observe that representative's interactions with health care professionals. Takeda also requires its sales representatives to be "certified" by Takeda to sell its drugs, including each new drug that Takeda releases. Takeda provides training to sales representatives for that purpose, including a performance improvement plan (usually created in consultation with both the sales representative's District Manager, the Regional Manager, and the Human Resources department) when a sales representative does not meet expectations after a certain point in his training.

The events that give rise to Nathan's claims began in the latter half of 2008. At that time, Nathan's district manager was Michael Fouchie. Fouchie expected all of his representatives in his district to start their work day in the field at 8:00 a.m. However, under an arrangement with his wife, Nathan dropped his older child off at school Tuesday through Friday at 8:30 a.m., following which he would begin his work day. Def.'s Ex. C, at 105-06 ("Nathan Dep."); SUF 16. Fouchie occasionally commented critically to Nathan about his start times, but in November 2008 the criticism escalated. Id. at 106-07. During a conversation with  [**4] Nathan about his start times on November 20, 2008, Fouchie learned that Nathan's tardiness was due to his child-care responsibilities four days per week. SUF 16. During that conversation, Fouchie told Nathan that starting his field work at 8:30 a.m. on a regular basis was not acceptable. Id. Fouchie also asked Nathan why his wife could not drop their older child off at school, a comment that became the basis for Nathan's claims of gender discrimination. According to Nathan, Fouchie "had the attitude where it's the wife's job to do it, how come your wife can't do it," though Nathan does not point to any other actual statements by Fouchie to support that "attitude."

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

890 F. Supp. 2d 629 *; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120705 **; 2012 WL 3686737

NOAH NATHAN, Plaintiff, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by Nathan v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21622 (4th Cir. Va., Oct. 24, 2013)

Related proceeding at Nathan v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22708 (4th Cir. Va., Nov. 8, 2013)

CORE TERMS

training, gender, retaliation, start-time, sex, adverse employment action, prima facie case, protected activity, sales representative, complaints, matter of law, conversation, causation, subjected, pretext, drugs, certification, child-care, caregiver, hostile, male, ride, training requirements, temporal proximity, reasons, animus, protected class, start time, adduce, non discriminatory reason