Caplan v. L Brands/Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC

• Decision Date: 28 September 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 14-1021
• Citation: 210 F.Supp.3d 744
• Parties: Mindy CAPLAN, Plaintiff, v. L BRANDS/VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

210 F.Supp.3d 744

Mindy CAPLAN, Plaintiff,

v.L BRANDS/VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 14-1021

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed September 28, 2016

Samuel J. Cordes, Jessica B. Michael, Samuel J. Cordes & Associates, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.

Adam J. Rocco, Andrew C. Smith, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Columbus, OH, Maria Greco Danaher, Patrick J. Fazzini, Philip K. Kontul, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Steven R. Miller, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendant.

OPINION

CONTI, Chief United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This dispute arises out of the termination of the employment of Mindy Caplan ("Caplan" or "plaintiff") by her employer, L Brands/Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC ("VSS" or "defendant"). At the time of her termination, Caplan was a VSS district manager. Caplan claims that VSS terminated her employment in retaliation for needing and taking time off work to attend to the medical needs of her child and herself and for opposing racial discrimination in society. Caplan also accuses VSS of interfering with her right to take medical leave under federal law. According to Caplan, VSS's conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" § 1981") and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"). (ECF No. 1.) This court exercises subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Pending before the court is VSS's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 28.) In that motion, VSS seeks entry of judgment as a matter of law with respect to all claims asserted in Caplan's complaint. For the reasons that follow, VSS's motion will be granted, judgment will be entered in VSS's favor on all three claims set forth in the complaint, and this case will be closed.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Caplan's Employment with VSS

VSS is a nationwide specialty retailer. (Combined Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 41) ("C.S.") ¶ D1).¹ Each VSS store is headed by a store manager. (C.S. ¶ D2.) Stores are organized into geographical districts, and each district is supervised by a district manager. (C.S.¶ D3.) The district manager is supervised by a regional manager. (C.S. ¶ D3.) Caplan was hired by VSS in 2001 as a district manager and was responsible for overseeing eight or nine stores in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area. (C.S. ¶¶ D7-8.) During the relevant time period, Caplan's supervisor was regional manager Laura Courtney ("Courtney"). (C.S. ¶ D9.) Caplan's duties as district manager included knowing, enforcing, and abiding by VSS's policies; plaintiff was aware that she could be terminated for violating a VSS policy. (C.S. ¶ D13.) Courtney considered Caplan to exhibit "good work performance" while employed as a district manager. (C.S. ¶ P3.)

Caplan utilized FMLA leave on three occasions between 2010 and 2012. (C.S. ¶ D65.) All three times, Caplan followed VSS's procedure when requesting FMLA leave. (C.S. ¶ D65.) VSS's benefits guide directs employees to contact HR Direct, a service that administers FMLA leave for VSS, to coordinate FMLA leave. (C.S. ¶¶ D6, D63.) VSS procedure requires employees to take the following steps when requesting FMLA leave: "(1) contact HR Direct to request a FMLA packet; (2) return the completed forms to HR Direct; and (3) include a written medical certification from a healthcare provider." (C.S. ¶ D64.) Caplan was granted FMLA leave each time and there is no evidence that her supervisor expressed any objection to or problem with her needing to take this time off. (C.S. ¶¶ D67, D74.)

After 2012, Caplan never again contacted HR Direct to request FMLA leave. (C.S. ¶ D68.) Caplan did request paid time off ("PTO") in April, May, and June 2014 for health reasons including kidney stones, gall stones, and an ovarian cyst, and to care for her son after he suffered a serious wrist fracture and had his appendix removed. (C.S. ¶ D69, ¶ P97.) These medical issues were each unexpected. The record reflects that Caplan's requests for PTO were typically made on the morning of or the night before the day that she needed to take off. (e.g., ECF No. 38-3 at 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14.) In order to take PTO, Caplan was required to contact her immediate supervisor, Courtney, and seek permission or approval for the time off. (C.S. ¶ D70.) Caplan requested extensions for some of these absences when certain medical concerns continued, and Courtney granted those extensions. (C.S. ¶¶ P92-100, P102-05, P110). Caplan asserts that Courtney "warned her" about requesting leave during a busy sales period for VSS, but there is no dispute that Caplan was granted all the PTO that she requested between April and June 2014. (C.S. ¶ D71, ¶¶ P106-09.) Caplan's last PTO day was on or around June 9, 2014. (C.S. ¶ P123.)

Caplan and Courtney communicated while Caplan was taking PTO, about both personal matters, e.g., Caplan's son's and her own health, and business matters, e.g., whether Caplan would be able to participate in meetings by telephone and about regional sales data. (C.S. ¶¶ P93-100, P102, P105, P110.) While Caplan was on PTO in May 2014, she was included on a group email that Courtney sent to the district managers in her region, which email attached a company report and expressed disappointment that Courtney's region was at the bottom of the "AOS participation report." (C.S. ¶ P101; ECF No. 38-3 at 9-13.) Caplan recognized that her district was not performing at the same level as Courtney's other districts in the region when she returned from PTO in June 2014. (C.S. ¶ P112.)

B. The Ethics Complaint

Throughout 2014, Caplan used her Facebook account on a daily basis, and she identified herself as a VSS district manager and included a picture of herself in front of a VSS store on her Facebook profile. (C.S. ¶¶ D23-25.) Caplan's Facebook profile was accessible to at least 80 other Facebook users, including other VSS employees, and was a publically accessible account. (C.S. ¶ D26.)

VSS provides its employees with an "Ethics Hotline," which allows for reporting workplace concerns via telephone—anonymously, if desired—to a third-party operator instead of to a manager or human resources representative. (C.S. ¶ D16.) During the evening hours of June 17, 2014, VSS received an anonymous ethics complaint about Caplan that mentioned, among other things, the existence of two "disturbing" posts from Caplan's Facebook profile. (C.S. ¶ D28.) The ethics complaint also included accusations that Caplan made racist and derogatory remarks while on the job, and refused to hire or promote African-American candidates. (C.S. ¶ D28, ¶ P6.) This was the first complaint of this nature that VSS received about Caplan. (C.S. ¶¶ P10-11.)

On June 18, 2014, senior human resources generalist Laura Martinez ("Martinez") and human resources director Cassandra McBride ("McBride") received and investigated the ethics complaint against Caplan. (C.S. ¶¶ D29-30.) Martinez and McBride located the two Facebook posts identified in the ethics complaint: the first was a reposted picture depicting a person wearing a Ku Klux Klan-reminiscent white, hooded robe emblazoned with the Los Angeles Clippers logo and the number 42, and was captioned "Game 5 in LA is Free Sheet Night...Donald Sterling Bobble head doll night too!;" the second was a reposted picture of an African-American female named "Airwrecka McBride" appearing on a local newscast, with a caption stating "I've been spelling Erica wrong my whole life." (C.S. ¶¶ D30-32; ECF No. 30-1 at 124, 126.) Martinez and McBride contacted Rob Stalter ("Stalter"), a member of the VSS legal department, and Stalter informed VSS general counsel Doug Williams ("Williams") about the situation. (C.S. ¶¶ D33-34.) After reviewing the posts on Caplan's Facebook profile, Williams—an African-American male—concluded that the posts were offensive and violated VSS equal opportunity² , off duty conduct³ , and social media⁴ policies. (C.S. ¶¶ D36-38.)

Williams conferred with Stalter, McBride, and senior vice president of human resources Jackie Sheets ("Sheets") regarding the two posts on Caplan's Facebook profile on June 18, 2014. (C.S. ¶ D40.) They were all concerned that the posts could reflect poorly on VSS because Caplan's profile identified her as VSS manager. (C.S. ¶ D44.) It was agreed among these four individuals that if Caplan admitted to adding either of the posts to her Facebook profile or to making any of the racist remarks identified in the ethics complaint, she would be terminated. (C.S. ¶¶ D42, D46-47.) The final decisionmaker with respect to Caplan's termination, Williams, deemed either Facebook post to be sufficient, standing alone, to warrant termination; a decision with which Stalter, Sheets, and McBride agreed. (C.S. ¶¶ D42, D46-47.) Stalter relayed the decision to Martinez, and asked Martinez to arrange an interview with Caplan. (C.S. ¶ D49.) At this point, Martinez and McBride informed Caplan's immediate supervisor, Courtney, about the ethics complaint and Williams' decision, and Martinez and Courtney scheduled a meeting with Caplan for June 20, 2014. (C.S. ¶¶ D50-52.)

Martinez and Courtney actually met with Caplan on the evening of June 19, 2014, and explained that an ethics complaint about her had been received on the VSS Ethics Hotline. (C.S. ¶¶ D52-53, ¶ P13.) During the meeting, Caplan admitted to reposting the two Facebook posts mentioned in the ethics complaint, but denied making the racist remarks. (C.S. ¶¶ D54, D56, ¶ P14.) Martinez informed Caplan that her employment was being terminated, but told her that a severance package would be made available to her. (C.S. ¶ D61.) Caplan declined to accept the severance package. (C.S. ¶ D61, ¶ P82.) Caplan identifies no evidence that Williams, Stalter, Sheets, or McBride—the four individuals who conferred about the ethics complaint and decided to terminate Caplan's employment—had any knowledge about Caplan's ...