Deposition Transcript of a Detriot LPM Field Manager

Case: David Caudle v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
Case Number: 2:17-cv-13737
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Deposition Date: May 10, 2019
Witness: Ryan John Dinsmore, Nielsen Field Manager
Transcript: 147 pages
Subject: Allegations concerning employment discrimination, medical leave, disciplinary actions, and wrongful termination.

Overview

The deposition examines the circumstances surrounding Nielsen's termination of David Caudle, an African American field technician who had worked for the company since approximately May 2012. His manager, Ryan Dinsmore, testified about Caudle's performance history, medical absences, disciplinary records, alleged quality violations, and the company's termination process.

The central dispute concerns whether Nielsen terminated Caudle because of legitimate work-quality and data-integrity violations or whether his termination was influenced by his medical condition, protected leave, race, or other potentially discriminatory considerations.

Dinsmore maintained that Caudle's termination resulted from serious quality violations rather than his medical absences or ordinary performance metrics. However, his testimony exposed uncertainties about the timing of the termination decision, the investigation, supporting documentation, and the treatment of other employees.

Employment History and Performance

Caudle joined Nielsen around May 2012 as a field technician responsible for installing and maintaining television audience-measurement equipment in participating households.
Dinsmore personally hired Caudle and described him as outgoing, hardworking, helpful, and a team player.
Dinsmore acknowledged that Caudle performed well during his first several years and frequently helped coworkers.
Caudle's primary performance metrics were generally not the reason Nielsen terminated him.
Nielsen required field technicians to maintain approximately 91% INTAB performance, representing the proportion of assigned households providing usable audience-measurement data.
Dinsmore stated that Caudle's measurable performance was not the central issue. Instead, he attributed the termination to equipment handling, inaccurate household records, and violations of data-integrity procedures.

Medical Condition and Extended Leave

Caudle had sickle cell anemia, which Dinsmore understood could require recurring medical absences.
Dinsmore acknowledged that Caudle sometimes missed two to three months annually because of illness or injury.
During Caudle's absences, other technicians covered his territory, creating additional workloads and scheduling challenges.
Coworkers expressed frustration about working additional hours, particularly when expected return dates were repeatedly extended.
Dinsmore denied blaming Caudle for these problems or pressuring him to return before he was ready.
He acknowledged discussing Caudle's absences with management and HR as part of staffing and scheduling decisions.
Dinsmore referred to Caudle in an HR communication as an employee who missed several months annually because of illness or injury.
He explained that this description was intended to identify Caudle to HR, rather than to influence a termination decision.

Concerns About Medical Leave and Possible Fraud

During a 2016 medical leave, Dinsmore received information from Nielsen's Regional Operations Center indicating that Caudle had reported a car accident and hospitalization.
When Dinsmore contacted Caudle, Caudle denied having been in a car accident.
Dinsmore considered the discrepancy unusual and became concerned about Caudle's behavior and well-being.
He acknowledged that he did not establish whether the Regional Operations Center had misunderstood or incorrectly reported the conversation.
Dinsmore questioned the appearance of one doctor's note despite having no medical training.
He acknowledged considering the possibility of fraudulent medical documentation, although he said determining fraud was not his responsibility.
HR leave administrator Patricia Veath communicated that medical information substantiated Caudle's need for leave.
Dinsmore acknowledged that the medical leave appeared properly supported and stated that he did not challenge that determination.
He also speculated that Caudle might have been experiencing mental health problems, substance-related issues, or other difficulties.
Dinsmore repeatedly emphasized that these were concerns rather than established diagnoses.
He said he sought HR guidance because he did not know how to manage the situation appropriately.

Performance Improvement Plan

Caudle received a Performance Improvement Plan following a July 3, 2014 incident involving incorrectly recorded household demographic information.
Two household members had their genders reversed in Nielsen's records, potentially affecting television ratings data.
Dinsmore characterized the violation as serious enough to justify termination on a first occurrence.
Instead, Caudle was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
The plan also included incomplete scheduling records, late database updates, and below-target computer-metering participation metrics.
Dinsmore acknowledged that some of these secondary metrics were stretch goals and that other technicians also missed them.
The document presented during the deposition was unsigned, and Dinsmore could not confirm whether a signed copy existed.
The document contained outdated references to 2012 and 2013, which Dinsmore attributed to reusing another employee's disciplinary form.
Dinsmore testified that the precise violations documented in the 2014 plan did not recur, although he maintained that other quality problems subsequently emerged.

Alleged Quality Violations Leading to Termination

Dinsmore identified two principal household incidents that contributed to the termination decision.

Household involving Dave Shock:

Another technician, Dave Shock, visited a household previously managed by Caudle.
The homeowner reportedly stated that Caudle had instructed her not to use a bedroom television.
Dinsmore considered this a serious problem because Nielsen technicians must not influence household viewing behavior.
Equipment associated with the television had reportedly been disconnected.
Nielsen records indicated that Caudle had returned to repair the equipment, but the homeowner reportedly disputed that he entered the home again.
Dinsmore suggested that Caudle might have accessed the equipment remotely through Wi-Fi and changed its status.
He acknowledged uncertainty about precisely what happened.
Caudle had not properly recorded the alleged return visit in Nielsen's scheduling system.
Dinsmore initially described the procedural violation as terminable but subsequently clarified that simply failing to schedule a visit was not itself grounds for termination.

Household involving Shamir Chappell:

Dinsmore visited another household with technician Shamir Chappell.
They discovered Nielsen equipment that should have been removed during previous service visits.
Some equipment was associated with a television that was no longer present.
Household-member information on the remaining equipment was outdated.
Dinsmore said the discrepancies could produce inaccurate ratings information.
He testified that Caudle had previously visited the home multiple times and should have corrected the problems.
Dinsmore could not recall the household's name.

Dinsmore maintained that these incidents demonstrated serious quality and integrity concerns. However, when asked to identify additional specific incidents supporting termination, he repeatedly stated that he could not remember.

Rauschkin Household Complaint

Another household associated with Caudle generated a Better Business Bureau complaint.
Nielsen records reflected discrepancies between the number of televisions and the equipment assigned to the household.
The household reportedly had five televisions, while Nielsen's database listed only four.
Additional equipment had been recorded in inventory.
The homeowner complained about repeated contact attempts and the eventual removal of her household from Nielsen's sample.
Dinsmore explained that the company had been trying to resolve equipment problems before the household became ineligible for continued participation.
He later delivered approximately $400 to $600 in participation incentives to resolve the homeowner's concerns.
Importantly, Dinsmore acknowledged that the Rauschkin incident was discovered after Nielsen had already decided to pursue Caudle's termination.
Consequently, the incident could not have been part of the original justification for making that decision.

Timing of Suspension and Termination

Dinsmore estimated that Caudle returned from medical leave around October 2016.
Caudle was suspended pending investigation within days of returning.
Dinsmore acknowledged that Nielsen had already been considering termination before Caudle returned from leave.
He initially suggested that the decision to potentially terminate Caudle had already been made.
Under further questioning, he distinguished between considering termination and obtaining final authorization.
Dinsmore explained that the suspension procedure was relatively new to him.
Previously, managers generally investigated problems before meeting employees and terminating them.
He could not identify a written policy establishing the newer suspension process.
He could not recall other clear examples of employees receiving similar suspensions pending investigation.
Dinsmore testified that the post-suspension process did not include further inspections of the households involved.
He believed the remaining process primarily involved confirming with HR and legal that Nielsen could proceed with termination.
When asked whether Caudle could have provided an explanation at the suspension meeting that would have prevented his termination, Dinsmore said he was unaware of any such explanation.

Race and Discrimination Questions

Caudle's attorney questioned whether Dinsmore had treated Caudle differently because of race.
Dinsmore denied telling Caudle that he should remain in a particular territory to work with other Black employees.
He also denied knowing about a survey allegedly distributed only to African American employees.
Dinsmore stated that Caudle may have requested a territory transfer but was not reassigned.
He explained that territory transfers were relatively uncommon and generally denied because technicians build relationships with households over time.
Another employee, James Hard, received a territory transfer after relocating, primarily to reduce a lengthy commute.
Dinsmore maintained that operational considerations explained territory-transfer decisions.
The deposition does not establish whether Caudle was denied a transfer because of race.

Treatment of Other Employees

Dinsmore discussed several other technicians terminated for quality deficiencies, inaccurate paperwork, or allegedly falsified service visits.
These included Rob Roney, Chris Carlos, Paul Riddle, and Jim Fee.
Roney was identified as Caucasian and Carlos as Hispanic.
Dinsmore described their violations as involving serious quality problems and inaccurate work records.
He acknowledged that he had personally made a metering mistake earlier in his career without receiving a Performance Improvement Plan.
In that situation, he immediately informed his manager and corrected the error the following day.
Dinsmore also acknowledged a personal family connection to technician Dave Shock, whose sister was his former partner and the mother of his child.
He denied discussing Caudle's case with Shock outside the ordinary work context.
Dinsmore stated that Paul Riddle had previously challenged a termination decision in a proceeding before a magistrate.
The nature and result of that proceeding were not fully established.

Auditing and Quality-Control Procedures

Nielsen used internal and external household audits to verify the accuracy of audience-measurement equipment and demographic information.
External audits were conducted by Ernst & Young.
Internal audits selected households through a process Dinsmore described as random, although he could not explain the selection methodology.
Dinsmore testified that Caudle had approximately 10 or 11 households selected during one audit, more than any other technician he remembered.
The next-highest number he recalled was approximately six or seven.
Despite the unusually large number of selected households, Dinsmore stated that Caudle performed very well during that audit.
Dinsmore also acknowledged that older Field Quality Review records became inaccessible to him following changes to Nielsen's reporting forms and systems around 2016.
He could locate only one of Caudle's previous quality-review records in preparation for the deposition.
He did not know whether the older records remained accessible elsewhere.

Internal Promotion and Territory Requests

Caudle had apparently applied for an internal position, possibly an auditor role.
Dinsmore recalled learning about the application after it had been submitted.
He believed employees were expected to notify their managers before applying for internal opportunities.
Dinsmore did not recall being contacted for a recommendation.
The deposition does not establish that Dinsmore interfered with the application or that the promotion opportunity was denied for discriminatory reasons.

Legal Complaints and Evidence Preservation

Dinsmore learned that Caudle intended to challenge his termination legally.
He stated that he was instructed to preserve relevant emails and documents and avoid deleting records.
He did not recall participating directly in an EEOC or comparable state-agency investigation.
He did not recall attending a formal investigative meeting about Caudle's discrimination allegations.
Dinsmore acknowledged that Caudle and Paul Riddle were the principal former employees he remembered who challenged termination decisions.
He stated that he had not communicated with Caudle since the termination.

Key Evidentiary Issues

Termination timing: Dinsmore acknowledged that termination was already under consideration before Caudle returned from medical leave, but could not clearly establish when the final decision was made.
Medical leave: Management discussed Caudle's recurring absences, and Dinsmore raised concerns about his medical documentation and possible mental health issues. The testimony does not establish that these concerns actually caused the termination.
Unverified information: The reported car accident was not conclusively verified, despite becoming part of Dinsmore's concerns about Caudle's behavior.
Investigation: Dinsmore described little additional factual investigation after the suspension and suggested that the remaining review primarily involved HR and legal authorization.
Documentation: The disciplinary plan was unsigned, contained outdated information, and some historical quality-review records were inaccessible.
Specific incidents: Dinsmore identified two principal households supporting termination but could not recall additional specific examples when questioned.
Subsequent evidence: The Rauschkin household incident was identified after the termination decision was already under consideration.
Prior performance: Dinsmore acknowledged that Caudle had previously been a good employee, received favorable audit results, and was not terminated because of ordinary numerical performance metrics.
Comparator evidence: Other employees were terminated for quality violations, while Dinsmore also acknowledged receiving no formal discipline for a promptly reported and corrected mistake earlier in his career. The circumstances were not necessarily equivalent.
Conflicting explanations: Parts of Dinsmore's testimony about the termination process, decision timing, and individual violations required clarification or qualification under questioning.

Overall Assessment

The deposition provides evidence supporting Nielsen's stated position that Caudle's termination arose from equipment-handling problems, incomplete service documentation, and concerns about the integrity of its television audience-measurement data.

At the same time, the testimony raises questions about how firmly the termination decision was supported and when it became effectively final. Dinsmore acknowledged favorable aspects of Caudle's employment history, could not consistently recall important details, relied partly on reports from other people, and described a post-suspension review that apparently involved little additional factual investigation.

The timing of the suspension immediately after medical leave, the manager's documented concerns about Caudle's health and absences, and uncertainty surrounding the decision-making process are potentially relevant to the discrimination and retaliation allegations.

However, the deposition alone does not prove that Nielsen discriminated against Caudle or unlawfully retaliated against him. Establishing those conclusions would require considering the documentary evidence, other witness testimony, applicable legal standards, and the complete litigation record.

Bottom Line

Ryan Dinsmore testified that David Caudle was a previously valued employee whose termination resulted from serious quality-control violations rather than medical leave, race, or numerical performance problems. The most consequential portions of the testimony concern the unclear termination timeline, potentially predetermined disciplinary outcome, limited post-suspension investigation, medical-leave communications, incomplete historical records, and Dinsmore's inability to identify more than a few specific incidents supporting termination.

Thread regarding Nielsen layoffs

Deposition Transcript of a Detriot LPM Field Manager

2 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply