Carvalho v. Santander Bank, N.A.
| Decision Date | 29 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 19-287 JJM-LDA |
| Citation | 573 F.Supp.3d 632 |
| Parties | Lisa CARVALHO, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Hillary J. Garland, Brian N. Goldberg, Tang & Maravelis PC, Warwick, RI, for Plaintiff.
Hyun Yoon, Pro Hac Vice, Nipun J. Patel, Pro Hac Vice, Holland & Knight LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Patricia K. Rocha, Daniel J. Procaccini, Leslie D. Parker, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., Providence, RI, for Defendant.
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., United States District Court Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Lisa Carvalho alleges that, during her tenure as a District Executive at Defendant Santander Bank, she was sexually harassed, subjected to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against because of her gender. More specifically, she submits evidence showing her supervisor used sexual language and barraged her with sexual innuendo that was inappropriate in the workplace; and when Ms. Carvalho rebuffed her suggestions and rejected her advances, Santander fired her ostensibly for cause. Ms. Carvalho sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Rhode Island state law. Santander Bank denied these claims and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of Ms. Carvalho's case. ECF No. 40. The Court GRANTS summary judgment for Santander Bank on Count I and DENIES summary judgment on Counts II and III.
Santander is a national bank with operations in the northeast United States. ECF No. 41 ¶ 1. At the time relevant to this suit, local Santander branches were managed by Branch Managers, who reported to their respective District Executives, who in turn reported to the Region President. Id. ¶ 3.
In 2016, Santander hired Ms. Carvalho to work as a District Executive at Santander, reporting directly to Region President Sarah Lindstrom. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. Several senior executives interviewed her for the position, including Ms. Lindstrom. Id. ¶ 6. For the prior fifteen years, Ms. Carvalho had held positions with several financial institutions. Id. at ¶ 7.1
Ms. Carvalho details incidents that occurred during an approximately six-month period in 2016-17. Before Ms. Carvalho was hired, Ms. Lindstrom allegedly made several comments about Ms. Carvalho being young, attractive, and energetic, "the way Santander employees should look." ECF No. 50 ¶ 88. After she started working for Ms. Lindstrom at Santander, Ms. Lindstrom regularly interjected sexual matters into their work relations. For example, one month into Ms. Carvalho's employment at Santander, Ms. Lindstrom hosted a "team appreciation" event at a bowling alley. Id. ¶ 90. During the event, Ms. Lindstrom asked several female employees if they had ever kissed a girl. Id. ¶ 92.
At two social gatherings on consecutive nights in 2016, Ms. Carvalho contends that Ms. Lindstrom asked detailed questions about prior sexual experiences with women. ECF No. 41 ¶¶ 37, 38; ECF No. 45 ¶ 37. At the first, Ms. Lindstrom started and pushed the conversation by repeatedly asking detailed and graphic questions about prior sexual experiences with females. Id. Ms. Carvalho felt that Ms. Lindstrom was intimating that she wanted to have a sexual relationship with her. Id. The next evening, at Ms. Carvalho's home, Ms. Lindstrom positioned herself next to Ms. Carvalho on the couch and asked her what she thought about the prior night's conversation. ECF No. 41 ¶ 41. Ms. Lindstrom asked Ms. Carvalho if she would engage in oral sex with a woman. Id. To avoid the uncomfortable situation, Ms. Carvalho pretended her son was crying, went upstairs, brought him into her room, and locked the door. ECF No. 50 ¶ 111. Even though Ms. Carvalho did not return, Ms. Lindstrom did not leave but spent the night, sleeping on the couch. Id.
Two weeks later, Ms. Lindstrom sent Ms. Carvalho a Facebook page from Ms. Lindstrom's husband that had a drawing of a Thanksgiving turkey photo-shopped with a man's scrotum. ECF No. 41 ¶¶ 45, 46.
Later, Ms. Lindstrom scheduled a work dinner meeting with Ms. Carvalho. Id. ¶ 49. Ms. Carvalho alleges that during this dinner, Ms. Lindstrom held her hand affectionately and told her that she had received poor feedback from skip-level reviews -- claiming that "none of the higher-ups" liked her and that Ms. Lindstrom was the "only one protecting her." ECF No. 45 ¶ 49. Towards the end of the year at a holiday work party, Ms. Lindstrom placed her hand on Ms. Carvalho's upper thigh during a group photo. ECF No. 50 ¶ 116.
Ms. Carvalho did not initially report Ms. Lindstrom's conduct to Santander's Employee Relations because she believed they would not handle her complaints appropriately. She claims that she "feared that HR was intimidated by [Ms. Lindstrom], and that [Ms. Lindstrom] would learn of [her] complaint and retaliate against [her] for doing so." ECF No. 41 ¶ 85.
Before the spring of 2017, Santander often recognized Ms. Carvalho for her exemplary performance at work. Id. ¶ 54. She was identified as one of the top District Executives company-wide, ranked #1 in her District Peer Group and #7 in the company overall for profit/loss, and earned regular recognition as a top performer in many areas. ECF No. 50 ¶ 121.
But that all began to change after Ms. Carvalho stopped talking to Ms. Lindstrom on a personal level. Not long after, in mid-December 2016, Ms. Lindstrom re-assigned Ms. Carvalho to a new district and asked her to prepare a 30-60-90-day action plan, insisting that she complete it even though she was going out on vacation.2 ECF No. 41 ¶ 52.
Ms. Carvalho began to receive more mixed employment reviews. Some remained positive: Ms. Lindstrom gave Ms. Carvalho a positive 2016 year-end review, rating her overall performance as "Totally Meets Expectations." Id. ¶ 54. Ms. Carvalho's team averaged a score of 91.7, which was the highest in the region, ECF No. 50 ¶ 123, and under Ms. Carvalho's leadership, her region continued to make improvement. Id. ¶ 124. Still, in early February 2017, Ms. Lindstrom told Ms. Carvalho that the head of sales ranked her a "1" on a scale of 1-10. Id. ¶ 120. Despite all the previous high-performance ratings Ms. Carvalho received, Ms. Lindstrom asked her to take a demotion. Id. ¶ 126.
Ms. Carvalho asserts that because of her supervisor's advances and her subsequent poor work evaluations, she approached an Employee Relations consultant for a meeting. ECF No. 50 ¶ 136. After a text message exchange lasting a week, Ms. Carvalho and a representative of Employee Relations scheduled a date to get coffee at the end of the week. Id. ¶ 138.
Days after Ms. Carvalho contacted Employee Relations, an employee approached a Branch Manager to report that Ms. Carvalho had permitted her to increase her hourly wage by adding false overtime hours to her timecard. ECF No. 41 ¶ 57. The Branch Manager brought this matter up to Ms. Lindstrom and Employee Relations. Id. ¶ 59. Santander fired the employee soon after. Id. ¶ 66.
Ms. Carvalho denied these allegations. She contended that when the employee said that she was applying for positions that paid more money, Ms. Carvalho told her that she would speak to Ms. Lindstrom about raising her compensation, and thereafter advised her to complete Santander's relationship banker training and obtain the necessary license to be a relationship banker. Id. ¶ 62. Santander could not confirm the story because the employee did not provide any text or emails to support her allegations against Ms. Carvalho. ECF No. 50 ¶ 142.
After a brief chain of emails between Ms. Lindstrom and Employee Relations, they reached a consensus to fire Ms. Carvalho. ECF No. 41 ¶ 73. The email described the reasons for her termination as: "[p]oor leadership; admitted to a lack of oversight around overtime for the district; admitted to not following up with manager and gave several employees approval to work unlimited overtime due to staffing shortages; loss of over $4,000 to the Bank in overtime wages paid but not worked." Id. Even though Employee Relations at first recommended a final level warning rather than termination, Santander fired Ms. Carvalho. ECF No. 50 ¶¶ 149-50.
Ms. Carvalho sued Santander and Ms. Lindstrom, alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. After the discovery period closed, Santander moves for summary judgment on all counts. ECF No. 40.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, a party is entitled to summary judgment only if "no genuine dispute [exists] as to any material fact" and if the undisputed facts show that the party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Knight v. Mills , 836 F.2d 659, 664 (1st Cir. 1987) (). A material fact is one that Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy because it deprives the parties of the opportunity to have a jury decide the outcome of their enshrined in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. CONST. AMEND. VII (). Thus, the law requires that all reasonable inferences be drawn against the moving party and that the court grant summary judgment if the undisputed facts and inferences that flow from them allow for only one reasonable conclusion in favor of the movant. Knight , 836 F.2d at 664 (citing Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). The Court must "tak[e] the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw [ ] all reasonable inferences in [her...
To continue reading
Request your trial