Motorola Inc. Chief Executive Edward Zander and other top executives may have constructed a “paper trail” to justify firing a high-ranking female executive who later sued for alleged sex discrimination, a federal judge wrote in a ruling Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge David Coar, paving the way for a Nov. 6 jury trial, found “circumstantial evidence that there was a concerted effort to `cover one’s tracks’” in Motorola’s 2005 firing of chief procurement officer Theresa Metty.

Motorola “offers very few objective or quantifiable measures pointing to [Metty's] performance failings, and there is evidence that Zander and those below him attempted to construct a record or paper trail to make up for that failure,” Coar wrote in denying Motorola’s request for summary judgment.

Barring a settlement, Coar’s ruling means that Zander will be called to testify during what could be a lengthy trial on charges that he and others discriminated against Metty when they fired her during a reorganization and replaced her with allegedly less-qualified men.

Motorola released a statement Wednesday that said, “We believe Metty’s claims of discrimination are entirely without merit and the company will defend itself against these baseless accusations. We are confident that this matter will be resolved to our satisfaction at trial and Motorola’s outstanding reputation and practices will be upheld.”

Motorola also said it was pleased that Coar threw out Metty’s claim that the company retaliated against her because she was an advocate for women.

“I think the judge got it exactly right on our discrimination claim,” said Metty’s lawyer, Denean Sturino of FagelHaber LLC in Chicago. “He was able to see all those shenanigans. I firmly believe a jury will see through their charades.”

A damage expert for Metty, who is 54, estimated the value of her lost pay and stock options at $30.5 million. Sturino said Motorola rejected a settlement demand two weeks ago.

Experts disagreed about whether the ruling would make Motorola more likely to settle.

Employment lawyer Terry J. Smith said the company is unlikely to change its stance.

“Taking it to summary judgment means Motorola is taking a tough stand,” said Smith, of Smith O’Callaghan & White in Chicago. “It tells you right off the bat that they feel there are strong defenses to the claim.”

Freada Kapor Klein, a San Francisco-based consultant on discrimination and diversity issues, said, “I would think Motorola would have to be seriously weighing not just the costs of litigation” but also the potential damage to its reputation with consumers who buy its products.

A trial could pit Zander against Mike Zafirovski, Motorola’s former No. 2 executive, who left in January 2005–four months before Metty was fired–after losing out a year earlier on the CEO job to Zander.

Zafirovski, who is now chief executive of Nortel Networks, hired Metty in 2000, promoted her and regularly gave her strong performance reviews.

Motorola has argued in court records that he turned a “blind eye” toward her failings. And Zander, in a deposition in Metty’s case, called Zafirovski, “a very poor judge of people.”

In his ruling Coar noted, “there were few significant problems indicating tension” when Metty reported to Zafirovski.

“Events leading up to plaintiff’s termination involved a conspicuously intense four-month period of negative interactions following four years of relatively serene company service,” Coar wrote.

Metty claimed in court filings that Motorola failed to offer a single non-discriminatory explanation for why she was replaced by men who allegedly were less qualified. She also alleged that male executives who were displaced by Zander’s reorganization got much larger severance offers than she did.

Motorola claimed that Metty had been promoted beyond her competence and lost the confidence of senior leaders.

“Lack of support” is an acceptable, non-discriminatory reason for firing, Coar wrote, but he added there is enough evidence to send Metty’s case to a jury that Motorola tried to concoct a “pretext” for firing her.

He cited Zander’s alleged comment during a staff meeting that he “wants her out legally,” as well as a question by human resources manager Arlis McLean, “How do we explain this to a jury?” McLean said in a deposition that it is standard practice in her profession to ask that question as a reminder and precaution whenever firing decisions are made.

Source- http://www.chicagotribune.com