Azzaro v. County of Allegheny
| Decision Date | 11 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3253,95-3253 |
| Citation | 110 F.3d 968 |
| Parties | 73 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1073, 73 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 930, 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,646, 65 USLW 2667, 12 IER Cases 1343 Beverly A. AZZARO v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY; Tom Foerster, an individual and Chairman, Allegheny County Commissioners and Wayne Fusaro, Beverly Azzaro, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Michael J. Healey (argued), Healey, Davidson & Hornack, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.
Ira Weiss, County Solicitor, Robert L. McTiernan (argued), Assistant County Solicitor, Caroline Liebenguth, Assistant County Solicitor, Allegheny County Law Department, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellees.
Before: STAPLETON, SAROKIN, * and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, MCKEE and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Beverly Azzaro worked for Allegheny County in various capacities from March, 1979, until June 19, 1992, when she was discharged from her position as marketing coordinator in the Allegheny County Department of Development. Azzaro claims that her discharge was in retaliation for her reporting an incident of sexual harassment by an executive assistant to the County Commissioner. The district court entered summary judgment against Azzaro.
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was a causal link between plaintiff's report of sexual harassment and her termination. We also conclude that plaintiff's report of sexual harassment is constitutionally-protected speech. We will reverse the district court and remand for a resolution of the remaining factual issues.
Because we are obligated on summary judgment to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we will present Azzaro's version of the events leading up to her discharge. According to Azzaro, the chain of events that resulted in her termination began on June 11, 1991--just over a year before she was discharged--when her husband, who was also employed by the County, had a verbal confrontation with employees of the County Department of Employee Relations regarding the manner in which the Azzaros' daughters were treated in connection with their applications for jobs as County lifeguards. The Director of the Department of Employee Relations reported the incident to Harry Kramer, who was an executive assistant to then-County Commissioner Tom Foerster, indicating that his employees were upset by Mr. Azzaro's behavior. Kramer instructed Wayne Fusaro, another of Foerster's executive assistants, to speak with Mr. Azzaro and request that he apologize. Fusaro spoke with Mr. Azzaro, and Mr. Azzaro apologized to the appropriate people.
Azzaro learned of these events a day or two later through her husband and a co-worker, Donna Brusco. She was told by the co-worker that Mr. Azzaro's job might be in danger as a result of the incident. Fearing for her husband's position and hoping to smooth things over, Azzaro went to Commissioner Foerster's offices to talk to Fusaro. Azzaro testified that, after she had entered Fusaro's office and seated herself, Fusaro shut the office door and pulled a chair very close to hers. He then began pulling open the lapels of her blazer, saying "let me see." App. 120. She tried to hold the blazer shut, telling him to stop, and saying "[w]hat the hell is wrong with you," but he put his hand inside and pulled her blouse out of her slacks. App. 121. Azzaro continued to try to evade Fusaro, standing when he sat down and sitting when he stood. Suddenly, Fusaro unzipped his pants and put his hand inside the zipper. App. 122. Azzaro stood up and said loudly, "[a]re you nuts." Id. As soon as plaintiff "got loud," Fusaro "assumed ... [a] professional attitude." App. 123. He sat down at his desk and took a phone call. After he hung up, he said, "Beverly, I want you to promise what happened here is never going to go any further." App. 124. Azzaro promised.
Allegheny County's policy regarding sexual harassment defines it as conduct "includ[ing] any unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature." App. 56. Under the terms of the policy, an employee who has been subjected to sexual harassment "should bring the matter to the immediate attention of his or her supervisor." Id. Following such a report, the County Equal Employment Opportunity Director is required to "promptly investigate ... in as confidential a manner as possible" and to submit a report to the Director of Administration within thirty days. Id. It is the Director of Administration who is authorized to "take appropriate corrective action." Id.
Azzaro did not immediately report the sexual harassment incident with Fusaro to her supervisor. However, she did tell her daughters of the incident on the day it occurred, and she told her husband and a friend the following day. She and her husband decided at that time not to report the matter or pursue it further for fear that they could lose their jobs.
In October 1991, Azzaro did finally tell her supervisor, Tom Fox, of the incident. She first brought the matter to Fox's attention at a party, during a discussion of Anita Hill's testimony at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Fox expressed shock and urged Azzaro to report the incident and pursue it through the proper channels. The following Monday, he called her into his office, asked her to repeat the story, and pressed her once again to report the incident to the Director of the Department of Development, Joe Hohman. He told her that if she did not report it, he would be obliged to do so on his own. Azzaro asked him not to do so, telling him, "I ... [am] scared for my job and my husband's job." App. 163.
Subsequently, Fox told Hohman himself. In so doing, he impressed upon Hohman that he was telling him in confidence and that Hohman should not take any action unless he felt that he had an obligation to do so as director of the department. Hohman told Fox that if Azzaro wanted to pursue the matter, she would have to report to him directly.
Meanwhile, Hohman was growing concerned that his relationship with Commissioner Foerster was deteriorating because Foerster no longer sought his input or advice. Hohman scheduled a meeting with Commissioner Foerster in December, 1991 to address these concerns. Foerster invited his executive assistants, Fusaro and Kramer, to attend. During the course of the meeting, Hohman stated that he "had problems with the people [Foerster] was surrounding himself" with, such as Wayne Fusaro. Hohman testified that he said at the meeting,
Wayne Fusaro ... potentially has a sexual harassment case coming against him from an employee in my office who I cannot name because the employee has not given me permission to name, but it occurred right upstairs in this office, Commissioner, over a summer job for her daughters.
App. 361-62. Both Foerster and Kramer offered a slightly different account, testifying that Hohman mentioned a possible lawsuit against Fusaro but did not say that it concerned allegations of sexual harassment or offer any other details regarding the incident or the alleged victim. However, both men have testified under oath in a related case that Hohman accused Fusaro of sexual harassment at that meeting. App. 306, 433. 1
Just as this meeting was taking place, Azzaro reported the harassment incident to the County Director of Administration, Sal Sirabella, the official ultimately responsible for reviewing reports of sexual harassment and deciding what corrective action to take. When he asked what she wanted him to do, she replied: App. 146-47. Sirabella allegedly replied, "[L]et's leave it alone for now...." App. 147. Azzaro testified that she did not ask Sirabella to keep their conversation confidential. According to Sirabella, however, Azzaro asked him to keep the content of their conversation confidential. Mr. Azzaro, who attended the meeting with Sirabella, also indicated that he thought his wife told Sirabella that "she'd prefer him to keep it confidential." App. 225. Sirabella did not take any action.
That evening, Donna Brusco phoned Azzaro at home. She had spoken to Fusaro about the incident in Commissioner Foerster's office. Brusco told Azzaro that Joe Hohman had been in Commissioner Foerster's office that day, that he had been "extremely upset," and that he "was screaming at Commissioner Foerster that Wayne [Fusaro] was a pervert." App. 168. Brusco said that Fusaro had been too upset to tell her all the details. She then asked Azzaro why she had gone to see Sirabella that day. Subsequently, Fusaro asked Sirabella "three or four times" what the purpose of Azzaro's visit had been. App. 172.
Azzaro alleges that she was fired in retaliation for her reporting of the Fusaro incident. According to Azzaro, this retaliation was initiated by Fusaro and Brusco. Fusaro began by calling Don Kovac, who was the Director of Employee Relations during the relevant time period and was responsible for coordinating personnel activity for all County employees. Fusaro told Kovac that he suspected that the Department of Development, where Azzaro worked, had employees on the payroll who were disloyal to Commissioner Foerster. He asked Kovac to allow Donna Brusco and another member of the Employee Relations Department to "review the entire payroll in the Department of Development to pick out people that were loyal to Foerster and people that were loyal to Brimmeier," who was Foerster's opponent. App. 417. Because Brusco had worked for the Department of Development until she was transferred to the Employee Relations Department at Fusaro's request in the fall of 1991, she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marrero v. Camden County Board of Social Services
...under the Act) should generally be decided by a jury. 10. It should also be noted that the Third Circuit held, in Azzaro v. County of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 1997), that an employee's report, to her supervisor, of another supervisor's sexual harassment constituted speech on a "matt......
-
Cousins v. Goodier
...Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School Distr. , 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) ).65 Azzaro v. Cnty. of Allegheny , 110 F.3d 968, 977–78 (3d Cir. 1997).66 App. to Opening Br. at A46.67 Cousins , 2021 WL 3355471, at *3 ("I must decide ‘whether alleged defamatory stateme......
-
Rappa v. Hollins
...testimony regarding others' alleged interference in the penalty proceedings so as to preclude summary judgment); Azzaro v. County of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968, 981 (3d Cir.1997) (holding that a genuine factual dispute existed as to whether a sexual harassment complaint was the motivating fact......
-
Rodriguez v. Torres
...type of evidence demonstrates a factual issue concerning the cause of the adverse employment action taken against the plaintiff. See Azzaro, 110 F.3d at 981; see also Lombardi, 7 F.Supp.2d at 497 (citing Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 284 N.J.Super. 544, 665 A.2d 1139 (App.Div.......
-
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
...authority that holds that raising issues involving discrimination involves matters of public concern. In Azzaro v. County of Allegheny , 110 F.3d 968 (3rd Cir. 1997), Azzaro reported an incident of sexual harassment that had occurred to her. Azzaro was subsequently terminated. In analyzing ......
-
Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
...rel. Hamrick v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC , 2016 WL 628304, at *9 (1st Cir. Feb. 17, 2016)(same). Third Circuit: Azzaro v. County of Allegheny , 110 F.3d 968, 974-975 (3rd Cir. 1997) (failure to follow policies applicable to employee suggests that discrimination may be involved); Stewart v. Rutge......
-
Constitutional violations (42 U.S.C. §1983)
...interest as an employer in promoting efficiency of services it performs through its employees. Azzaro v. County of Allegheny , 110 F.3d 968, 980 (3rd Cir. 1997). For purposes of balancing test for determining whether public employee’s speech is protected by First Amendment, it is not essent......
-
Public Employee Speech Rights: Survey of Recent Trends
...received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ReferencesAzzaro v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968, 980 (3d Cir. 1997) (en banc).Barnum, D. G. (1981). Freedom of assembly and the hostile audience in Anglo-American law. The American Journal o......