Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Grief Bros. Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2004
• Docket Number: 02-CV-468S
• Parties: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. GRIEF BROTHERS CORPORATION,[1] Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. GRIEF BROTHERS CORPORATION,^[1] Defendant.

No. 02-CV-468S

United States District Court, W.D. New York

September 30, 2004

DECISION AND ORDER

WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”) alleges that Defendant Greif, Inc. engaged in unlawful employment practices against its former employee, Michael Sabo, on the basis of his sex. In particular, Sabo alleges that he was subjected to repeated same-sex sexual harassment and then constructively discharged by Defendant after it failed to remedy the sexually hostile work environment. Plaintiff alleges violations of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (“Title VII”). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1345.

Presently before this Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is denied in its entirety.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Almost every fact related to the conditions of Michael Sabo's employment with Defendant is disputed.^[2] However, the parties agree on many of the background facts in this case. Michael Sabo was employed by Defendant at its Tonawanda, N.Y. plant. (Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (“Defendant's Statement”), ¶ 1; Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (“Plaintiff's Statement”), ¶ 1.) Defendant's Tonawanda plant manufactures fibre drums used in industrial packaging applications. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 6; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 6.) During 1998 and 1999, the time period that Sabo worked at the plant, there were 65 hourly and 9 salaried employees. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 2; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 2.) The production and maintenance employees were members of the United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO (“the Union”).^[3]

The top supervisor at the plant at that time was David Lotz, the Plant Manager. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 3; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 3.) Three Production Managers directly supervised the hourly production employees and reported to Lotz. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 4; Knoer Aff., ¶ 4; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 4.) Sally Knoer, an on-site Human Resources Administrative Assistant and Greg Wagoner, a Regional Human Resources Manager, handled the human resources functions for the Tonawanda plant. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 5; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 5.)

Between August of 1998 and October of 2001, SPS Temporaries, Inc. (“SPS”), provided temporary employees for the Tonawanda plant. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 12; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 12.) Sabo was employed by SPS from October 27, 1998, through February 23, 1999. (Barker Aff., ¶ 3.) Throughout this period, Sabo was assigned to Defendant's Tonawanda plant, although it appears from the record that Sabo did not actually begin working at the plant until November 9, 1998. (Barker Aff., ¶ 3; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 18.) On February 24, 1999, Defendant hired Sabo as a full-time employee. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 20; Knoer Aff., ¶ 4; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 20.) Sabo worked for Defendant until April 21, 1999. (Knoerr Aff., ¶ 4.) While Sabo's employment status changed when he was hired by Defendant, his duties within the plant did not. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 22; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 22.)

When Sabo initially started working for Defendant through SPS, three other temporary employees from SPS began with him. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 14; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 14.) Each of the temporary employees, including Sabo, was permitted to select their assignment at the plant. (Defendant's Statement ¶ 14; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 14.) Sabo chose to work in the Riveting Department. (Sabo Dep., p. 87, 90.) John Walters supervised the Riveting Department. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 16; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 16.)

As noted above, the conditions of Sabo's employment with Defendant are heavily contested. Defendant does not admit the bulk of the following allegations.

Sabo is a homosexual man. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 26; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26.) The EEOC contends that employees at the Tonawanda plant started harassing Sabo within his first two weeks on the job, and that the harassment continued and escalated through April 21, 1999. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶¶ 23, 25.) Three of Sabo's co-workers -Ron Parkhurst, John Dryzga, and Jamie Milson - are identified as the principal harassers. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 24.) None of these three individuals knew that Sabo was homosexual or thought that he was homosexual. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26.)

The EEOC contends that Parkhurst, Dryzga and Milson harassed, emasculated, humiliated and ridiculed Sabo because he did not conform to the stereotypical view of masculinity. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26.) Sabo contends that he was harassed in part because he wore an earring in his left ear and refused to participate in sexually explicit discussions about women. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶¶ 19, 23, 25; Sabo Dep., p. 187-188.) The EEOC alleges that Sabo's co-workers further engaged in offensive verbal and physical conduct, including conduct that caused Sabo concern for his physical safety. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 25, 26.) The EEOC alleges that the following incidents took place:

(1) Parkhurst repeatedly sang a song to Sabo to the tune of “Put Your Head on My Shoulder” that included the lyrics: “Put your lips on my testes, lick them up and down, Mikey. Lick them all around Mikey. Put your lips on my testes.” (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26a.; Sabo Dep., p. 145.)

(2) When Sabo walked behind Parkhurst, Parkhurst would “always cover his rear end and say, don't go there, I don't go there, exit only.” (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26b; Sabo Dep., p. 148.)

(3) When Sabo crouched to pick something up from the floor, Parkhurst would say “while you are down there . . .,“ the implication being that Sabo could perform oral sex on Parkhurst. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26b.)

(4) Parkhurst, Dryzga and Milsom called Sabo derogatory names such as “faggot,” “queer” and “fudgepacker.” (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26c; Sabo Dep., p. 148.)

(5) Parkhurst and other employees engaged in daily sexually explicit conversations about their sexual fantasies and encounters with women, the female anatomy, penis size, oral sex and anal sex. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26d.) Sabo objected to these conversations and refused to participate in them. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26d.)

(6) On one occasion, Parkhurst wore an apron with a kitchen towel on the front of it. Beneath the towel was a fake erect penis attached to the apron. Parkhurst paraded around the workplace displaying the fake penis and flashed it at Sabo. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26e.)

(7) On one occasion Milsom asked Sabo what shape and what color he liked. When Sabo responded that he liked triangles and the color purple, Milsom announced that based on a test from an article related to the “Teletubbies” television show, Sabo was a “queer” and a “faggot.” (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26f.) Milsom apparently told everyone at the plant, including a newly hired employee, that Sabo proved that he was a “faggot.” (Sabo Dep., p. 157.) This nearly led to a physical confrontation between Sabo and Milsom. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26f.)

(8) Milsom encouraged new employees to call Sabo names such as “homo,” “faggot,” “fudgepacker” and “queer.” (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 26g.) Milsom also commented that Sabo must be a virgin because he refused to join in the discussions about sex and the female anatomy.

(9) Both Parkhurst and Dryzga threatened to force Sabo out of the plant. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 25.)

The EEOC contends that Sabo complained about these incidents involving Parkhurst, Dryzga and Milsom to Walters (Sabo's supervisor), Lotz (the Plant Manager), Parkhurst (the Union President)^[4] and Michael Gerbec (Sabo's Union Representative). (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶¶ 26a, 26b, 26e, 26f, 27.)

Defendant contends that Sabo did not complain about the conduct he now attributes to Dryzga or Milsom, and only complained once to Walters about Parkhurst's “name calling.” (Defendant's Statement, ¶¶ 27, 28.) Defendant alleges that on April 1, 1999, the same day Sabo complained to Walters about Parkhurst, Walters took the issue to Lotz. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 29.) With Lotz's approval, Walters conducted a fifteen-minute group meeting with members of the Riveting Department to address Defendant's Sexual Harassment policy and to “nip the problem in the bud.” (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 29.) Defendant contends that Sabo's harassment stopped after this meeting. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 30.) The EEOC disputes this claim. It contends that the April 1, 1999 meeting was ineffective and maintains that the harassers continued to call Sabo sexually explicit names, as well as names such as “cry baby,” “kiss ass” and “snitch.” (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶¶ 30-31.)

On April 21, 1999, Sabo contends that he complained to Walters that his co-workers were deliberately trying to make his work more difficult by speeding up the assembly line. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 35.) Walters allegedly dismissed Sabo's complaint and directed him to go back to work. (Defendant's Statement, ¶ 35; Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 35.) Sabo returned to work briefly and then determined that he could not “take this anymore.” (Sabo Dep., p. 177; Sabo Decl, ¶ 10.) On his way out of the plant, Sabo went to the office to try to speak to Lotz, but Lotz was off that day. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 36.) Instead, Sabo advised Knoer (the Human Resources Assistant) that he was quitting and asked her to have Lotz call him. (Plaintiff's Statement, ¶ 36.) Sabo subsequently called Lotz and left him a...