Hamel v. Prudential Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 85-4502-Y.
• Parties: Ellen HAMEL, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

640 F. Supp. 103

Ellen HAMEL, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 85-4502-Y.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 30, 1986.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YOUNG, District Judge.

This suit arises out of the now-terminated employment relationship of the plaintiff Ellen Hamel ("Hamel") with the defendant Prudential Insurance Company ("Prudential"). In her complaint, Hamel alleges that she was sexually harassed during the course of her employment with Prudential and that, ultimately, she was fired in retaliation for complaining about this harassment. The complaint seeks relief under federal law for violations of The Equal Pay Act (Count II) and Title VII (Count III), and under state law for wrongful termination (Count IV) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V). At oral argument, the Court dismissed the state claims for the reasons given in Flynn v. New England Telephone, 615 F.Supp. 1205, 1209-11 (D.Mass.1985). Prudential's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim is presently before the Court. For the reasons discussed below that motion is allowed.

I.

Hamel began work as a sales trainee with Prudential in June, 1983. She alleges that from June, 1983 through November, 1983 she was harassed on numerous occasions by Leonard Altieri, one of Prudential's sales managers. During November, 1983, Hamel began a disability leave from her employment. Hamel alleges that between November, 1983 and December, 1983 Altieri would come uninvited to her home in Canton, Massachusetts to deliver disability paychecks. While there he allegedly sexually harassed her.

On December 22, 1983, Hamel complained to Michael Costa, a Prudential district manager, about Altieri's conduct. During the spring, 1984, Hamel continued to complain to Prudential officials about her past working conditions. During this time Hamel also retained the services of an attorney to represent her in connection with her job difficulties.

On May 25, 1984, Prudential notified Hamel that her employment had been terminated effective May 11, 1984, because her disability benefits had expired. Hamel alleges that she was fired because she complained about Altieri's advances.

On December 13, 1984, Hamel filled out an "Intake Questionnaire" at the Boston office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "federal agency"). Pursuant to the federal agency's procedures, a formal charge was drafted and typed based upon the information obtained through the Intake Questionnaire. According to the affidavit of Charles Looney, the Area Director of the federal agency, a formal charge was prepared on January 23, 1985, but due to "administrative error" the charge was not sent to Hamel until March 22, 1985. Hamel filed the formal verified charge on March 28, 1985.

II.

Anticipating the Supreme Court's decision in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, et al., ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 90 L.Ed.2d ___ (1986), that the conduct of which complaint is here made constitutes a violation of Title VII, Prudential limits its motion for summary judgment to its contention that the filing of the charge was untimely. Prudential points out that March 28, 1985, was well over a year after the last act of claimed sexual harassment, and 321 days after the claimed retaliatory discharge. Hamel responds that she should not be penalized for administrative error, and therefore this Court should deem the charge filed on the date she filled out the Intake Questionnaire, December 13, 1984.¹

As to Hamel's argument that the Intake Questionnaire constituted a "charge," little need be said. First, § 706(b) of Title VII specifically requires that a charge be made "under oath or affirmation." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Although an Intake Questionnaire is signed, it is not signed under oath. Any suggestion that this distinction is formalistic tends to ignore the significance of a perjury conviction. Hamel relies heavily on Casavantes v. California State University, Sacramento, 732 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.1984), for the proposition that an Intake Questionnaire can constitute a charge. Id. at 1443. With all due respect, this Court agrees with Judge Shadur's observation that Casavantes is "unpersuasive," and "another hard case making bad law." Proffit v. Keycom Electronic Publishing, 625 F.Supp. 400, 403 (N.D.Ill.1985). Accordingly, the Court rules that Hamel did not file a charge within the meaning of the statute when she completed the Intake Questionnaire. Cf. id. at 405.

Hamel next argues that even if the Intake Questionnaire was not a charge, she should not be penalized for the administrative error and delay in preparing the charge. Presumably, she means to argue that the Court should toll the filing period as of the day the administrative error began, January 23, 1985. In support of this argument Hamel points to Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that "filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling." Id. at 393, 102 S.Ct. at 1132. The above language does not support the result Hamel advocates here, however. This is not a case that requires equitable intervention. Hamel has been represented by counsel since before her termination. There appears no reason in the record why she and her counsel took seven months even to complete an Intake Questionnaire. Conceeding for the purposes of this motion that the federal agency committed some administrative error in delaying preparation of the charge, this did not relieve Hamel's counsel of the ultimate responsibility of monitoring his client's claim. That is precisely what a lawyer is paid to do. It is the job of the lawyer, not the agency, to keep the client's claim from going stale. In circumstances such as this, equity does not require tolling the limitations period. That said, it should be recognized that the result might well be very different were Ms. Hamel an unrepresented layperson, unfamiliar with the procedural complexity of the statute. Civil rights laws need not be interpreted so as to make them traps for the unwary. On the other hand, neither need the laws be interpreted so as to protect those who ought know better from their own indolence.

Although the above discussion in itself provides sufficient reason to grant Prudential summary judgment as to Count III, there is another flaw in Hamel's case. Even if the Court were to accept Hamel's argument that December 13, 1984 was the date upon which she filed her charge, her claim would still be barred unless she could show that it fell within one of the exceptions to the general rule of 180 days within which to file with the federal agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). On this record, such a showing has not been made.

As just noted, Title VII generally requires that a charge be filed with the federal agency within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). However, the statute creates an exception to this requirement in so-called "deferral states," such as Massachusetts, where there exists a parallel state administrative scheme. As to cases arising within a deferral state the statute provides:

In a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a state or local agency ... such charge shall be filed ... within three hundred days.

Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has made clear that the requirement to initiate state proceedings is satisfied if the federal agency forwards the charge to the local agency, instead of the claimant herself. Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 816, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2492, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980); Love v. Pullman, 404 U.S. 522, 525, 92 S.Ct. 616, 618, 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972). But see Dixon v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 787 F.2d 943, 945-946 (4th Cir.1986), where the Fourth Circuit holds that, in a deferral state, mere transmittal to the state agency by the federal agency is insufficient to trigger the longer statute of limitations. None of these cases, however, support the conclusion that a claimant in a deferral state has...