Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co.
Decision Date | 05 October 1998 |
Docket Number | No. CIV. 97-1059 JAG.,CIV. 97-1059 JAG. |
Citation | Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 22 F.Supp.2d 372 (D. N.J. 1998) |
Parties | Susan FARRELL, Plaintiff, v. PLANTERS LIFESAVERS COMPANY and Nabisco, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Henry L. Saurborn, Jr., Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., Jersey City, NJ, David N. Mair, Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Joel L. Finger, Robert A. Bell, Michael P. Pappas, Roberts & Finger, LLP, Parsippany, NJ, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on four motions: (1) the motion for summary judgment of Roberts & Finger, LLP, counsel for defendantsPlanters LifeSavers Company("PLC") and Nabisco, Inc.("Nabisco")(collectively "Defendants"); (2) the cross-motion of Kaiser, Saurborn & Mair, P.C., counsel for plaintiffSusan Farrell("Farrell"), to compel discovery and preclude evidence withheld by Defendants; (3)Defendants' motion appealing Magistrate Judge Haneke's February 19.1998 order denying their motion to compel discovery; and (4)Defendants' motion appealing Magistrate Judge Haneke's May 27, 1998 rulings with respect to the pretrial order.
This is an employment discrimination and breach of contract action.Farrell alleges sex discrimination in her title, grade and pay.She also alleges that Defendants terminated her employment in retaliation for her allegations of sex discrimination and because she rebuffed her supervisor's sexual advances.Farrell also claims that Defendants fired her without cause in breach of an implied employment agreement.For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment but deny as moot (1) Farrell's cross-motion to compel discovery and to preclude evidence withheld by Defendants; (2)Defendants' motion appealing Magistrate Judge Haneke's February 19, 1998 decision denying Defendants' motion to compel discovery; and (3)Defendants' motion appealing Magistrate Judge Haneke's May 27, 1998 rulings with respect to the pretrial order.
In 1994, PLC was an operating company of Nabisco.1At that time, PLC's facility was located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.2Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing until 1997, PLC undertook a series of cost-cutting measures.These measures included the elimination of middle-management positions and the overall reduction of its work force.As part of this cost cutting process, in 1992, PLC hired Douglas DeLong("DeLong") as Director of Materials Management.DeLong's responsibilities included, inter alia, formulating new approaches for reducing operating costs in the Materials Management department.DeLong reorganized the Materials Management department and brought the Packaging Services, Purchasing, Graphic Design and Production Planning departments under his supervision in Materials Management.The heads of these four above-mentioned departments reported to DeLong, who in turn reported to a Vice-President.
In or about August 1993, DeLong's supervisor, Norm Jungmann, PLC's Vice-President of Operations, instructed DeLong to prepare a proposal setting forth those measures that he(DeLong) believed would result in cost savings for the Materials Management department.In his proposal,3 DeLong recommended, inter alia, consolidating the Packaging Services and the Graphic Design departments and restructuring the Purchasing department.See DeLong Aff., Ex. A.However, due to various business factors including the implementation of certain cost saving initiatives such as a new Supply Chain System,4 DeLong recommended that this particular suggestion in his proposal not be implemented until late 1994 or early 1995.
In November or December 1993, Gary Eckenroth, Vice-President of Human Resources and Administration for PLC, and Bruce Wood, President of PLC, decided to discharge the Director of Packaging Services, Ronald Yonker, for unsatisfactory performance.Yonker had reported directly to DeLong.
At some point before Yonker's termination became effective, the Human Resources department at PLC decided to eliminate Yonker's title of "Director, Packaging Services" and retitle the position "Senior Manager, Packaging Services".5PLC made this decision, in part, because after DeLong reorganized the Materials Management department, Yonker's peers in that department were titled "Senior Manager"6 or below and reported to a Director, DeLong.PLC preferred that a director not report to another director.7However, PLC did not downgrade Yonker's title when DeLong reorganized the Materials Management department because it was Nabisco's policy to avoid downgrading an incumbent's title or grade8 after restructuring a department where a substantial part of the responsibilities remain with the position.9Further, Yonker had held the title of "Director" since the beginning of his employment with PLC in 1974.Thus, Yonker's title was "grandfathered" as a "Director" title despite the fact that his position ranked lower in the Materials Management department after the reorganization.10
In late 1993 or early 1994, PLC began recruiting for both a packaging engineer and another person to replace Yonker as the head of the Packaging Services department.Acting through a recruitment agency, PLC approached Farrell about the packaging engineer position.At the time, Farrell was working as a packaging engineer for McCormick and Company in Hunt Valley, Maryland.Farrell agreed to go to Winston-Salem on January 25, 1994, to interview for the packaging engineer position at PLC.
Either shortly before or during Farrell's interview, PLC decided that based on her qualifications,11she should interview for the newly created Senior Manager, Packaging Services, position rather than the packaging engineer position for which PLC had recruited her.Farrell agreed to interview for the Senior Manager, Packaging Services, position.
Due to an error on PLC's part, one of Farrell's interviews was with Yonker, the person she would be replacing.PLC had not yet notified Yonker of his termination so Yonker believed that Farrell was interviewing for another position other than his own.As a result of seeing how PLC treated Yonker, Farrell sought assurances regarding the job security she would have if she accepted the position.DeLong assured her that PLC had repeatedly warned Yonker about his performance.DeLong added that she would only be fired for poor performance.
By letter dated February 4, 1994, Larry Norvell, Manager of Human Resources at PLC, formally extended an offer of employment to Farrell for the position of Senior Manager, Packaging Services.The yearly salary for the position was $90,000 and a signing bonus of $7,500.As part of its hiring relocation package, PLC agreed to purchase Farrell's home in Maryland for $240,000.Norvell's letter also added that PLC would pay for relocation back to Farrell's place of origin or closer, if her employment with PLC ended within the first 24 months of employment "due to performance concerns or position elimination".Farrell Cert., Ex. B. Farrell accepted the offer of employment by letter dated February 11, 1994.
Farrell commenced her employment at PLC on March 28, 1994.PLC gave her a copy of its employee handbook.Farrell assumed most of the responsibilities that Yonker had previously performed and she reported directly to DeLong.Seven employees reported directly to Farrell, including five packaging engineers.Farrell's department serviced all of the packaging design and implementation requirements for the Planters and LifeSavers product lines.
During the hiring process, Farrell had requested the title of "Associate Director"instead of "Senior Manager".PLC told her that the title of the position was "Senior Manager" but she could seek a reevaluation of the title after she was hired if she felt it was appropriate.In April or May 1994, Farrell asked DeLong and Eckenroth how she should go about requesting a reevaluation of her job title and salary grade, as well as the salary grades of her direct reports.Eckenroth told her to contact Tony Brown, Manager of Employee Relations, who would assist her with the process of making a review request to Nabisco's Compensation Group.12
Eckenroth, DeLong and Brown assisted and supported Farrell in her efforts in requesting a reevaluation of her position, as well as the salary grades of her direct reports.Karen Felix-McAllister, a Compensation Analyst in Nabisco's Compensation Group, told Farrell what information she needed to submit to Nabisco in order to have her request evaluated.From June through August 1994, Farrell gathered information including job descriptions relating to those individuals at PLC and Nabisco whom she believed performed functions comparable to her and her direct reports.Farrell concluded that her position and the positions of her direct reports were not titled and/or graded properly as compared to other employees within Nabisco.
In or about September 1994, PLC's Human Resources department submitted Farrell's formal reevaluation proposal to Nabisco's Compensation Group.Farrell proposed that the managers who reported to her be upgraded from a grade 10 to a grade 12.In addition, she requested that her own title, "Senior Manager, Packaging Services", be upgraded to the title of "Director, Packaging Services", and that her grade level of 14 be upgraded commensurate with the change in title.DeLong and Eckenroth reviewed and approved Farrell's proposal before its submission.
Felix-McAllister reviewed Farrell's proposal.Felix-McAllister was responsible for position evaluations and reevaluations in several areas (including materials management) within Nabisco and its operating companies, including PLC.
Nabisco's process for re-evaluating job positions in 1994 is set forth in Nabisco's 1993-1994 Salaried Employees Compensation...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Papp v. MRS Bpo LLC
...address it."). Nevertheless, several district courts in this Circuit, including the District of New Jersey, have reached the issue and determined that rejection of sexual advances constitutes protected activity.
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 22 F. Supp. 2d 372, 392 (D.N.J. 1998)(holding that plaintiff's pushing of her co-workers hand off her leg constituted protected activity), rev'd on other grounds, 206 F.3d 271.8 This Court agrees with the Farrell court and otherdistrict... -
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co.
...early when considering whether Farrell had established evidence of hostility. The District Court reasoned that Farrell had presented no evidence that his decision was related to any issue other than Jungmann's possible termination. See
id. at 388(reviewing Farrell's quid pro quo claim). However, Farrell faces no separate burden to substantiate the inference she draws from this decision; rather, the district court is to draw inferences in her favor at this procedural stage. See Iadimarcogreat significance upon the relatively close timing between her rejection of DeLong's advance and her termination. The District Court found the timing to be suggestive in its analysis of Farrell's retaliation claim but did not find it sufficient on its own. See Farrell, 22 F. Supp. 2d at 393(finding the timing not to be "unusually suggestive"). We view the timing of Farrell's termination as suggestive for both of Farrell's claims. The timing evidence is also enhanced by the occurrencerecruitment, hiring and later firing of appellant, Susan Farrell. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Planters Lifesavers Company and Nabisco, Inc., on all of Farrell's claims.1 See Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 22 F. Supp. 2d 372 (D.N.J. 1998). Farrell appeals the dismissal of her retaliation and quid pro quo sexual harassment claims under Title VII and the dismissal of her North Carolina contract law claim.2 Acting as Amicus Curiae, the Equal Employment... -
Price v. Delaware Dept. of Correction
...Woodson, 109 F.3d at 920 ("a plaintiff can establish a link between his or her protected behavior and subsequent discharge if the employer engaged in a pattern of antagonism in the intervening period");
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 22 F.Supp.2d 372, 392-93 (D.N.J. 1998). Plaintiff has demonstrated a close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action, and a pattern of antagonism after the protected conduct. In August, 1991, Plaintiff... -
McCulley v. Allstates Tech. Servs.
...unlawful conduct. See Little v. National Broadcasting Co., 210 F. Supp.2d 330, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that rejecting a supervisor's sexual advances constitutes protected activity under Title VII);
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 22 F. Supp.2d 372, 392 (D.N.J. 1998)("rejection of sexual advances is a protected activity within the meaning [of] Title VII"); Roberts v. County of Cook, 2004 WL 1088230, *5 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2004) ("The victim of harassment should not fear...