Hammel v. Marsh USA Inc.
| Citation | 206 F.Supp.3d 219 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14-943 CKK |
| Parties | Marnie HAMMEL, Plaintiff, v. MARSH USA INC. and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Cathy Ann Harris, Juliette Markham Niehuss, Kerrie D. Riggs, Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Mary M. Lenahan, William G. Miossi, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Marnie Hammel filed suit against Marsh USA Inc. ("Marsh") and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ("MMC"), alleging violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code Ann. §§ 2-1401.01 et seq. , Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act1 , arising out of Plaintiff's employment as a FINPRO Claims Advocate in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff alleges that her former employer, Defendant Marsh, discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, and pregnancy, and retaliated against her for reporting harassment. Presently before the Court is Defendants' [37] Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings,2 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court shall GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendants' [37] Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff Marnie Hammel, an attorney licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, worked for Marsh4 for approximately five years, from May 2007 to July 2012. See Defs.' Stmt. ¶¶ 22, 111. For the entirety of her employment with Marsh, Plaintiff worked as a Claims Advocate in Marsh's Financial Products and Liability Practice ("FINPRO") group, which "advises client[s] on financial and professional exposures or management liability exposures." See id. ¶¶ 3, 19, 80, 111; see also Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. [42], at 2-3. Marsh's Claims Advocacy Practice is a division of FINPRO that analyzes a client's exposures, assists clients in policy drafting, interacts with insurance carriers on behalf of clients involved in litigation, obtains insurance coverage and payments for clients, and consults with clients on issues that arise in the course of a complex claim negotiation and/or settlement. See Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 6; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 6. The Claims Advocacy Practice is a national practice, with employees located in certain Marsh offices across the United States from New York to San Francisco, which, during the time relevant to the claims in this suit, comprised approximately 12-14 full-time employees. See Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 7; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 7.
In early 2007, Plaintiff interviewed with several Marsh Managing Directors5 in Chicago and New York, including: Andrea Lieberman, at the time, the only FINPRO Claims Advocate in Chicago, David Nikolai, the Chicago FINPRO Practice Leader, and Lou Ann Layton, the head of the national FINPRO Practice. See Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 12. Plaintiff was subsequently offered a position in the Claims Advocacy Practice in Marsh's Chicago office as a Vice President ("VP"). Defs.' Stmt. ¶¶ 14, 19. On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff signed a written job offer from Marsh for a Claims Advocate position, reporting to Ms. Lieberman. Id. ¶ 19. The offer letter specified that Ms. Hammel would have the officer title of VP and confirmed her annual base salary of $125,000, which was the amount that Ms. Hammel had negotiated with Marsh as part of the interview process. Id. ¶¶ 14, 19; see also Pl.'s Offer Letter, Defs.' Ex. 11, ECF No. [37-3]. The offer letter also indicated that her compensation would be "considered for adjustment in succeeding years as part of our normal performance appraisal process." Pl.'s Offer Letter, Defs.' Ex. 11, ECF No. [37-3].
Ms. Hammel worked in Marsh's Chicago Office reporting to Managing Director Andrea Lieberman from May 14, 2007 until March 30, 2009, when she officially transferred to Marsh's Washington, D.C. office. See Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 22; Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 39:3-15.6 During that time, Ms. Lieberman was a direct, outspoken, and demanding boss.
See Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 23; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 23; Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 62:22-67:21, 152:8-12. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Ms. Lieberman demanded more of Plaintiff in particular and that Ms. Lieberman was respectful and caring towards her other subordinates, but frequently disparaging of Ms. Hammel in public and in humiliating ways. See Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 23; Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 63:13-64:13.7
Plaintiff cites several incidents in July 2007 and November 2007 where Ms. Lieberman allegedly demanded that Ms. Hammel "suck it up and come into work" on days when Ms. Hammel had been sick with various illnesses, including a foot infection and bronchitis. See Hammel Diary (Nov. 12, 2007), Defs.' Ex. 4B, ECF No. [37-3]. Plaintiff alleges that throughout her illnesses, Ms. Lieberman would call her multiple times a day, leaving voice mails and scheduling Ms. Hammel for client meetings and calls when she knew Ms. Hammel was too ill to work. See Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 58:3-18. After these incidents, Plaintiff informed David Nikolai, the Chicago FINPRO Practice Leader, who allegedly said that Ms. Lieberman was a Managing Director and that there was nothing he could do. Id. at 58:19-59:1. Upon learning that Plaintiff had brought the matter to Mr. Nikolai's attention, Ms. Lieberman allegedly called Plaintiff into her office, looked Plaintiff in the eye, and said that Plaintiff had "some fucking nerve complaining about a managing director in this company," and that she put her hands on her desk, stood up, and yelled, "I'm your manager and I can be a bitch if I want to." See Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶¶ 25, 27; see also Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 82:20-83:13.
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Lieberman told Ms. Hammel, in front of other colleagues, that she was all "smoke and mirrors," that Ms. Lieberman was "surprised at how little" Ms. Hammel knew, and that it was Ms. Lieberman's "job to put [Ms. Hammel] in her place" and "cut her down to size." Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 79:15-80:05. Plaintiff also alleges that Ms. Lieberman expressed disbelief that Ms. Hammel had any friends and that Ms. Lieberman chastised co-workers for befriending Ms. Hammel. Id. at 61:04-22, 69:19-70:08. Plaintiff also alleges that throughout her time working under Ms. Lieberman, Ms. Lieberman heavily scrutinized her work travel and required her to report to the office unnecessarily before work trips. Id. at 59:8-61:3. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Lieberman did not raise her voice, use foul language, or impose comparable expectations regarding leave and travel with respect to other employees. See id. at 67:22-68:14; see also Hammel Decl., Pl.'s Ex. 2, ECF No. [42-2].
Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Lieberman specifically targeted Plaintiff because she is a lesbian and alleges that she did not fit within Ms. Lieberman's conception of a female subordinate employee. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Lieberman made disparaging comments and belittling facial gestures when Ms. Hammel discussed her same-sex partner and that Ms. Lieberman made comments regarding Ms. Hammel's status as a gay woman. Id. at 69:07-18. On one occasion, Ms. Lieberman allegedly referenced Ms. Hammel's sexual orientation by asking if a friend who was visiting in the office was gay, and when Ms. Hammel responded that the individual was not gay, Ms. Lieberman allegedly responded, "no offense, but why would she be friends with you [Ms. Hammel] then." Id. at 69:19-70:08. Plaintiff also alleges that Ms. Lieberman routinely made fun of Ms. Hammel's style and manner of dress and made comments regarding Ms. Hammel's athleticism, allegedly stating in front of clients and co-workers, "that's how you are, people like you"—which Ms. Hammel interpreted as a reference to her status as a lesbian. Id. at 78:02-79:07. Plaintiff also alleges that upon her nomination for a "superstar of the month" award, Ms. Lieberman asked Plaintiff whether the person who had nominated her for the award was gay. Id. at 70:09-18.
Over the course of her time in Marsh's Chicago office, Plaintiff repeatedly complained of Ms. Lieberman's conduct to human resources, managers, and colleagues. Defs.' Stmt. ¶¶ 27, 39; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 27, 39. For example, Paul Denny, who in January 2008 took over for Mr. Nikolai as Chicago FINPRO Office Head, testified that Ms. Hammel came to him on at least ten occasions in 2008 with complaints about Ms. Lieberman. Denny Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 13, ECF No. [37-3], at 14:7-25. Plaintiff alleges that upon her complaints to management, Ms. Hammel's supervisors frequently advised her that they were aware of the circumstances and that Ms. Hammel should "let it go." Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ECF No. [37-3], at 113:12-14.
On December 15, 2008, Ms. Lieberman met with Ms. Hammel, informed Ms. Hammel that she was aware of Ms. Hammel's allegations, and questioned Ms. Hammel as to "why she would make false allegations of illegal conduct to Marsh N.Y." Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 25h; Lieberman's 12/15/08 notes, Pl.'s Ex. 12, ECF No. [42-9]; Lieberman Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 2, ECF No. [37-3], at 124:18-126:13. Ms. Lieberman also contacted Human Resources and expressed her concern that "there was an employee who made allegations that were so grossly unsupportable by fact." Lieberman Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 2, ECF No. [37-3], at 131:3-132:1; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 25h.
In late 2008, Ms. Hammel requested a transfer from Chicago to Washington, D.C with the hope of getting a fresh start in a different office. See Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 43; Pl.'s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 43; see also Hammel Dep. Tr., Defs.' Ex. 4, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial