Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000-L-110.,2000-L-110. |
| Parties | BLATNIK et al., Appellees, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION et al., Appellants.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Sindell, Young, Guidubaldi & Sucher, P.L.L., James P. Boyle, Cathleen M. Bolek and Steven A. Sindell, Cleveland, for appellees.
Thompson, Hine & Flory, L.L.P., Daniel R. Warren and Sindy J. Policy, Cleveland, for appellants.
{¶ 1} Appellants, Avery Dennison Corporation ("Avery Dennison"), David Scheibel ("Scheibel"), and Thomas Loria ("Loria"), appeal the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, which entered a favorable verdict on the defamation and loss of consortium claims of appellees, Michael A. and Michelle A. Blatnik ("Mr. and Mrs. Blatnik"), in the amount of $735,000 following a jury trial. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in part as to the loss of consortium claim, but affirmed in all other respects.
{¶ 2} On February 5, 1999, appellees filed a complaint against Avery Dennison, Scheibel, and Loria, alleging that immediately after Mr. Blatnik was terminated, appellants held a series of meetings with the employees of Avery Dennison. According to the complaint, during these meetings, false and defamatory statements were made to the employees that Mr. Blatnik had been terminated for sexual harassment, and that he had engaged in improper conduct while an employee of Avery Dennison. It was further alleged that these false statements were made with actual malice, and that there was no business reason for the publication of these statements to the employees of Avery Dennison.
{¶ 3} In addition to Mr. Blatnik's defamation claim, Mrs. Blatnik brought a claim for loss of consortium on the basis that she had been deprived of the services and companionship of her husband as a result of the defamatory statements made by appellants.
{¶ 4} This matter proceeded to trial where the following facts were adduced. Mr. Blatnik commenced employment with Avery Dennison in 1989. While employed with the company, Mr. Blatnik worked at both the Mentor and Painesville plants. By February 1994, he was the lead process operator in the specialty tape division at the Mentor plant.
{¶ 5} During this time, Marleah Zacharias ("Zacharias") was hired as a process operator in the specialty tape division where Blatnik was her supervisor and conducted evaluations of her work. Soon after her employment began, Zacharias made claims of sexual harassment against Mr. Blatnik. Then, after only four months of employment, Zacharias resigned in June 1994.
{¶ 6} In August 1994, Zacharias filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("OCRC") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging that she was sexually harassed by the lead process operator at Avery Dennison. After conducting an investigation, Avery Dennison prepared a position statement for the OCRC indicating that "no evidence exists of a hostile work environment involving behavior or comments of a sexual nature." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 7} While the OCRC/EEOC found no probable cause with respect to Zacharias's claims, it provided her with a right to sue letter. As a result, in January 1997, Zacharias filed a complaint against Avery Dennison and Mr. Blatnik for, inter alia, sexual harassment. In response, Avery Dennison conducted another investigation into the allegations by deposing Zacharias and interviewing numerous employees. However, the parties ultimately reached a settlement in early 1998. Thereafter, in February 1998, Mr. Blatnik was terminated.
{¶ 8} As a result of his termination, Scheibel, the vice-president and general manager of the specialty tape division, together with Loria, the director of operations, held a series of "communication meetings" with the employees in the specialty tape division at the Mentor and Painesville plants. At these meetings, the following statement was read to the employees:
{¶ 9} "I have called you together to inform you that Avery Dennison has terminated the employment of Michael Blatnik and to discuss with you the reasons for that decision. Mr. Blatnik's employment with the Company was terminated because we believe that he engaged in abusive behavior towards a female co-worker in 1994 which may be viewed as sexual harassment. This decision was based upon information that came to us through our investigations, both internal and external, through interviews of Avery employees who were present at the time who witnessed certain of the events in question, and through sworn testimony given in litigation which resulted from his misconduct. In the course of that investigation, we obtained evidence that indicated that Mr. Blatnik:
{¶ 10} "-repeatedly used abusive and obscene language toward a female employee;
{¶ 11} "-interfered with the work of a female employee by refusing to assist her as a member of her team;
{¶ 12} "-made an obscene reference to a female employee over a facility public address system;
{¶ 13} "-endangered the safety of a female employee who was performing maintenance on machinery by activating the equipment being serviced; and
{¶ 14} "-disrupted production by a female employee by altering equipment controls.
{¶ 15} "Conduct of this type cannot and will not be tolerated by Avery Dennison and has no place anywhere within the Company.
{¶ 16} "It is critical that everyone at Avery Dennison understands and supports the Company's policy concerning sexual harassment, discrimination of any kind, and abusive behavior by any Avery Dennison employee. Such conduct is unacceptable to Avery Dennison under any circumstances. Behavior of this type is unlawful and undermines the positive spirit of cooperation and teamwork which is essential to our working environment. Anyone who engages in such behavior is subject to discipline up to and including discharge.
{¶ 17} "It has always been Avery Dennison's policy that:
{¶ 18} "1) every employee is to treat every other employee with respect and dignity, in a professional manner, in the manner with which each of us would like to be treated;
{¶ 19} "2) any employee who has any problem is free and encouraged to raise that problem with anyone at the Company and to pursue that problem until it is resolved;
{¶ 20} "3) every employee has the right to discuss any problem with Avery Dennison Management or Human Resources Personnel in a confidential setting, completely free from any form of retaliation;
{¶ 21} "4) the Company will thoroughly investigate any report of misconduct or unlawful or abusive behavior and take appropriate action based upon the facts determined in that investigation including counseling or disciplinary action up to and including discharge, if necessary.
{¶ 22} "In order for the Company to investigate and rectify instances of improper conduct, it is essential that information be provided to the appropriate persons in a timely manner.
{¶ 23} "-Avery Dennison strongly encourages any person with information concerning such behavior to bring that information to the attention of Avery Dennison management so that this behavior can be investigated in a responsible, timely, and confidential manner.
{¶ 24} "-Every Avery Dennison employee should understand that state and federal law prohibits any employer from taking any retaliatory action against an employee who provides factual information concerning any form of discrimination.
{¶ 25} "-Avery Dennison has always supported and fully supports this vitally important legal principle. Under no circumstances will the Company take or tolerate any form of retaliation against any employee who provides factual information to the Company in the course of an investigation of workplace misconduct. Any employee who feels that he or she has been the victim of retaliation by anyone should immediately report that retaliation to Company management. All retaliatory conduct will be investigated by the Company and addressed appropriately.
{¶ 26} "-Only through open, candid communication, without fear of retaliation, can all of us at Avery Dennison work together to achieve and maintain a workplace which is free of discriminatory and abusive behavior.
{¶ 27} "-We hope that we can count on each of you to work with us toward that goal." (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 28} While Mr. Blatnik takes issue with the emphasized portion of this statement, Scheibel stated that it was necessary to mention Mr. Blatnik at the meetings and state the reasons for his termination in order for the employees to understand the sexual harassment policy. Further, Scheibel indicated that there was no reason to disbelieve the claims against Mr. Blatnik, and that he did not have any doubt regarding the reliability of the information upon which the statements were based.
{¶ 29} At trial, appellees presented the testimony of several employees of Avery Dennison, including Richard Pohl, Patricia Lee Naumann, Peggy Fulmer, Mark R. Rago, William Wood, and Mike Webster. Generally, these employees stated that they never observed Mr. Blatnik sexually harass Zacharias. Mr. and Mrs. Blatnik also testified on their own behalf.
{¶ 30} In turn, appellants offered the testimony of the following Avery Dennison employees: Edward F. Kloc ("Kloc"), Paul Phipps, Keith Lipovich, and Paul Durda. Generally speaking, these witnesses stated that Mr. Blatnik used abusive and derogatory sexual language towards Zacharias and explained that she complained to them about Mr. Blatnik sexually harassing her.
{¶ 31} For instance, Kloc testified that he observed the following incidents between Mr. Blatnik and Zacharias:
{¶ 32} "A. * * * Mr. Blatnik asked if I would take these gloves down to her [Ms. Zacharias] and when I got down to her station he got on the microphone and he asked me in front of her, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- 7471 Tyler Blvd., LLC v. Titan Asphalt & Paving, Inc.
-
Campbell v. Pmi Food Equipment Group, Inc.
... ... v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442, 461 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, ... 509 F.3d 781 ... St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384, 392 (1992) (emphasis added); see also Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp., 148 Ohio App.3d 494, 774 N.E.2d 282, 297 (2002) ... ...
- Brondes Ford, Inc. v. Habitec Sec.
- Weaver v. Deevers
-
Related State Torts
...statements were communicated in the employment setting concerning matters of common hospital interest. See also Blatnik v. Dennison , 148 Ohio App.3d 494, 774 N.E.2d 282 (Ohio 2002) (same); Johnson v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. , 197 Wis. 432, 440, 222 N.W. 451, 454 (1928), (conditional privileg......