Gray v. Equity Bank

• Decision Date: 26 May 2008
• Docket Number: Court File No. 27CV07-6402.
• Citation: Gray v. Equity Bank (Minn. State Dist. 2008)
• Parties: Ashley Gray, Plaintiff, v. Equity Bank, Equity Bank Holding Company, Inc., and Robert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam, Defendants.
• Court: Minnesota District Court

Page 1

Ashley Gray, Plaintiff, v.Equity Bank, Equity Bank Holding Company, Inc., and Robert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam, Defendants.

Court File No. 27CV07-6402.

District Court of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District.

May 26, 2008.

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Judge Janet N. Poston on January 17, 2008 pursuant to Defendant Robert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam's motion for summary judgment.

Based upon the evidence adduced, the argument of counsel, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following,

Adrianna Haugen, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Christopher Harristhal, Esq. appeared on behalf of DefendantRobert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam.There were no other appearances.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JANET N. POSTON, Judge of District Court.

ORDER

1.DefendantRobert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam's motion for summary judgment is denied, because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether DefendantRobert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

2.The following Memorandum of Law is hereby incorporated by reference.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Background

PlaintiffAshley Gray is a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Defendant Equity Bank is a Minnesota corporation.DefendantEquity Bank Holding Company, Inc., which owns 100% of Equity Bank's stock, is also a Minnesota corporation.Both Equity Bank and Equity Bank Holding Company, Inc. are referred to herein collectively as "Equity Bank."Steven Liefschultz is the majority owner, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Equity Bank.Liefschultz is also the Chairman, CEO, and part owner of the Remada Company("Remada"), a commercial real estate management company.Plaintiff has resolved her claims against the Equity Bank defendants.

DefendantRobert Half International, Inc. d/b/a OfficeTeam ("OfficeTeam") is a Delaware corporation registered to do business in Minnesota.OfficeTeam is a national staffing service that specializes in recruiting and placing temporary and permanent employees in the fields of electronic data processing, general financial services, and administrative and office support.

The facts contained herein are considered undisputed for purposes of OfficeTeam's motion for summary judgment.Although OfficeTeam does dispute many of Plaintiff's allegations, the facts presented are those alleged or not contradicted by Plaintiff's sworn testimony, consistent with the standard of review for summary judgment motions that all facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party, discussed further infra.¹

In the fall of 2006, Plaintiff sought employment through OfficeTeam.After she completed her interview, Plaintiff was given a copy of OfficeTeam's policies, including the sexual harassment and discrimination policies, which she read.

OfficeTeam's policies prohibit sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex.These policies recognize "sexual harassment" as including: unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which affects employment, interferes with work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; unwelcome or offensive touching and other verbal, graphic or physical conduct of a sexual nature, including sexual gestures; offensive remarks, jokes and other verbal, written or graphic commentaries of a stereotypical or sexual nature about an individual's body; sexually degrading words used to describe an individual; suggestive or obscene letters, notes, gestures, or invitations; and physical conduct, including touching, assault or impeding or blocking movements.Exs. G, H, and I, attached to the January8, 2008 Aff. of Adrianna S. Haugen.

OfficeTeam's policies require employees placed at a job site to report any harassment or discrimination to their manager at OfficeTeam.If an OfficeTeam manager receives a complaint of harassment or discrimination, the policies direct him or her to report the complaint immediately to the Branch Manager/Division Director or the Legal Department.The OfficeTeam manager is then expected to work directly with the Legal Department to develop "an appropriate response for investigating and resolving a complaint by one of our temporary employees."Ex. G to Haugen Aff.Generally, the appropriate response includes considering terminating the relationship with a client-employer that demonstrates a pattern of discrimination.OfficeTeam managers are directed not to advise candidates to return to a work assignment after a complaint of harassment has been made without first consulting the Legal Department.Retaliation against reporters for making complaints is prohibited.Id.

On November 1, 2006, Plaintiff began her temporary employment with Equity Bank, as a receptionist.Plaintiff's duties initially included answering the telephone, taking care of Liefschultz's e-mails and faxes, and performing other supportive roles as needed.At the time Plaintiff took the position at Equity Bank, she was told that Liefschultz would be her direct supervisor.

Terra Carbert, an OfficeTeam recruiting manager, negotiated Plaintiff's temporary placement at Equity Bank with Liefschultz.On Plaintiff's first day at Equity Bank, Carbert called her and explained that she was the OfficeTeam manager for all of Liefschultz's OfficeTeam employees.If Plaintiff had any questions or concerns, she was to contact Carbert.

Plaintiff and Liefschultz both testified that Liefschultz was out of the office for a few days when Plaintiff was first placed at Equity Bank.Liefschultz was also out of the office for approximately one week during the Thanksgiving holiday and for another week over the Christmas holiday.

About one month after Plaintiff's placement at Equity Bank, she began handling the accounting and bookkeeping responsibilities on a trial basis for Remada and moved to a different desk in Equity Bank.However, Plaintiff moved between the office and the receptionist's desk many times throughout the day.Gray Dep.at 42, attached as Ex. B to Haugen Aff.Shortly thereafter, another temporary employee took over Plaintiff's former receptionist duties.Liefschultz later assigned Plaintiff additional responsibilities processing loans in the loan department at Equity Bank.

Plaintiff alleges that she was frequently subjected to Liefschultz's unwelcome sexual harassment, which was particularly bad at the end of November 2006 and the beginning of December 2006.It is noted that Plaintiff was not able to recall the specific dates on which Liefschultz made inappropriate comments to her.Plaintiff alleges that Liefschultz routinely leered at her while she was working and made comments to her about her appearance.For example, Plaintiff alleges that Liefschultz told Plaintiff frequently that she looked "really good today" while staring at her and looking her up and down or winking at her.Plaintiff felt that Liefschultz's comments were made in an "unwanted" and "sexual" manner.Liefschultz also called Plaintiff on her mobile phone during evening hours an estimated ten times to reiterate that he thought she"looked really good today."During one telephone call, Liefschultz told Plaintiff that he liked her outfit because it made her look "like a little school girl."Id. at 93-94.

Plaintiff also alleges that Liefschultz frequently made inappropriate sexual comments to her such as telling her that she needed to gain weight because he"liked his girls with a little meat on their bones."Id. at 87.Plaintiff also testified that Liefschultz told her, in a sexually suggestive manner, that "[w]hen I like someone, it is in my best interest to keep them around."Id. at 66.Plaintiff testified that Liefschultz repeatedly asked her if she had any friends "her age that were open and available" because he"liked girls between the ages of 21 and 26."When Plaintiff told Liefschultz that these comments were inappropriate, Liefschultz responded that she should be telling her friends that the benefits of older men are threefold: money, money, and endurance.Id. at 87-92.

Plaintiff also testified that Liefschultz frequently made inappropriate comments to her at work.Liefschultz told Plaintiff that he wanted to see her and one of her co-workers "together."On many occasions, when Plaintiff tried to discuss work-related matters with Liefschultz, he would respond, "Would it be easier just to discuss it down at the Radisson?"²When Plaintiff admonished Liefschultz that he was married, Liefschultz responded, "M&Ms are great, but every night for 30 years, you like a little variety."Plaintiff testified that many of Liefschultz's comments occurred when other employees were present.Id. at 85-91.

Plaintiff testified that during a company meeting in December 2006, Liefschultz rubbed his foot up and down Plaintiff's leg in a sexual manner underneath the table.Initially, Plaintiff thought Liefschultz's act was unintentional, but he continued and began giving her "meaningful looks when he was doing it so [she] knew he was doing it on purpose."Plaintiff then switched seats.Id. at 94-96.

Liefschultz testified that any conversations that he had with Plaintiff wherein he discussed girls in their twenties, and other comments, were banter initiated by Plaintiff herself.Liefschultz Dep.at 33-34, attached as Ex. D to Haugen Aff. Liefschultz does not recall any foot/leg rubbing.Id. at 19.

In addition to Liefschultz's conduct described supra,Plaintiff testified that after the foot rubbing incident, Liefschultz began treating her poorly by yelling at her, berating her, rolling his eyes at her, and sighing heavily when she had questions.Plaintiff testified that Liefschultz had previously been very friendly, flirtatious, confident in her abilities, and generally happy.Although Plaintiff could not recall...