Koontz v. USX Corporation, CIVIL ACTION No. 99-3191 (E.D. Pa. 7/2/2001)
| Decision Date | 02 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 99-3191. |
| Parties | BRIAN S. KOONTZ and STANLEY ZUCZEK, Plaintiffs, v. USX CORPORATION and U.S. STEEL GROUP, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN, District Court Senior Judge.
Presently before the court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the responses thereto. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs Brian Koontz ("Plaintiff Koontz") and Stanley Zuczek ("Plaintiff Zuczek") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Defendants USX Corporation ("Defendant USX") and U.S. Steel Group ("Defendant U.S. Steel") (collectively "Defendants")1 for allegedly "subjecting them to discrimination and retaliation on the basis of their opposition to discrimination and the assistance they provided to female employees of Defendants who were the subject of sexual harassment by Defendants and their agents." (Compl. ¶ 1.)
Defendant USX hired Plaintiff Koontz on February 5, 1968 and Plaintiff Zuczek on April 23, 1968. (See Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs worked in the Accounting Department. During their tenure, Plaintiffs became involved with the grievance committee for Local 5092 of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO ("the Union") and bore the responsibility for processing employee grievances. (See Koontz' Aff. at 2; Zuczek's Aff. at 1-2.) In the Spring of 1996, Judy Petro-Roberts ("Petro-Roberts") and Carol Williams ("Williams"), female employees in Defendant USX's accounting department, complained to Plaintiff Koontz of sexual harassment by Anthony Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a male manager. (See Petro-Roberts' Dep. at 31-32; Koontz' Aff. at 2.) Specifically, Schmidt served as Department Manager for General Accounting.
Plaintiffs reported the complaints of sexual harassment to Robert Kennedy ("Kennedy"), Defendant USX's Employee Relations Manager, and demanded that the harassment stop. (See Koontz' Aff. at 2; Zuczek's Aff. at 2.) Kennedy allegedly assured Plaintiffs that a record of the complaints would be placed in Schmidt's file, and Schmidt would be transferred to another office. (See Koontz' Aff. at 2-3; Zuczek's Aff. at 2-3.) In or about June of 1996, Schmidt allegedly told Plaintiff Zuczek that he would "fire" both Plaintiffs "for what [they had] done to him." (See Zuczek's Dep. at 334-335; Zuczek's Aff. at 3.) Soon thereafter, Schmidt allegedly began entering his former office and contacting Petro-Roberts and Williams by telephone and in person. (See Petro-Roberts' Dep. at 33-35; Koontz' Aff. at 3.) Along with Plaintiff Koontz, Petro-Roberts complained to her direct supervisor Cyril William Winslade ("Winslade") to stop Schmidt's conduct. (See Petro-Roberts' Dep. at 33-34; Koontz' Aff. at 4.) Winslade allegedly stated that he was powerless to stop Schmidt's conduct. (See Petro-Roberts' Dep. at 33-34; Koontz' Aff. at 4.)
Also in August of 1996, Richard Walck ("Walck"), Schmidt's replacement as Department Manager for General Accounting, issued Plaintiff Zuczek a set of "work instructions" on how to perform his job. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 3; Walck's Dep. at 21.) Plaintiff Koontz filed a grievance relating to the "work instructions" as a "violation of the job description section of [Plaintiff Zuczek's] contract." (See Koontz' Aff. at 3.) On October 25, 1996, Walck allegedly informed Plaintiff Zuczek, in the presence of Plaintiff Koontz, that he was not performing his job in accordance with the "work instructions." (See Zuczek's Aff. at 4, Koontz' Aff. at 4.) Plaintiff Koontz claims that Walck failed to produce any reasons or documentation to support his position. (See Koontz' Aff. at 5.) Plaintiff Zuczek was reassigned from an accounts payable control clerk to "a temporary job in the blue print room" on November 1, 1996. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 4.) Plaintiff Zuczek filed a grievance with the Union and a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Defendants regarding his removal from the accounting office. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 5.)
In or around November or December of 1996, Schmidt allegedly began entering his former office with more frequency. (See Koontz' Aff. at 7.) At the request of Petro-Roberts and Williams, Plaintiff Koontz filed several grievances to complain about Schmidt's conduct. (See Def.s' Ex.s 7, 8; Koontz' Aff. at 7.) On January 3, 1997, a meeting was held with Plaintiff Koontz, Petro-Roberts, and two of Defendant USX's managers. (See Koontz' Aff. at 7.) During the meeting, Petro-Roberts explained how Schmidt sexually harassed her. (See Petro-Roberts Dep. at 59.) On January 14, 1997, another meeting was held with Defendants' managers. (See Koontz' Aff. at 8.) At said meeting, William McBunch ("McBunch"), Defendant USX's Labor Relations Manager, allegedly stated that Defendant USX never agreed to prevent Schmidt from entering his former office, and the Union could not restrict Schmidt's whereabouts. (See Koontz' Aff. at 8.) The following day, Kennedy met with Plaintiffs and allegedly stated that there was a perception that Plaintiff Koontz was inciting Petro-Roberts and Williams to initiate sexual harassment claims to satisfy Plaintiff Koontz' personal vendetta against Schmidt. (See Koontz' Aff. at 9.) Plaintiff Koontz filed a grievance regarding Kennedy's alleged statement. (See Def.s' Ex. 12.)
On January 16, 1997, Plaintiff Koontz informed Winslade that Plaintiff Zuczek, Petro-Roberts, Williams, and himself "would be off of work on union business on January 17, 1997." (See Koontz' Aff. at 9.) Kennedy allegedly requested a meeting with Plaintiffs. (See Koontz' Aff. at 9.) At said meeting, Plaintiffs allegedly informed Kennedy that they intended to file charges with the EEOC against Defendants concerning Schmidt's conduct. (See Koontz' Aff. 9, 10.) Kennedy allegedly proposed a joint investigation with the Union regarding the sexual harassment allegations against Schmidt. (See Koontz' Aff. at 10.) Between January 20 and January 24, 1997, Defendant USX conducted an investigation of Schmidt's alleged conduct and concluded that no sexual harassment involving Schmidt had occurred. (See Lauritzen Dep. at 44.) In or around February of 1997, Williams was removed from the accounting office. (See Koontz' Aff. at 12.) Approximately three months later, on April 7, 1997, Plaintiff Zuczek, in an oral agreement with Kennedy, consented to withdraw his grievances and EEOC charge against Defendant USX protesting his removal from the accounting office provided that Defendant USX returned Williams to the accounting office. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 8.)
On May 30, 1997, in preparation for Defendant USX's annual inventory, Plaintiffs met with Winslade and Walck to discuss the allocation of inventory work. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 8.) Plaintiffs allegedly questioned Winslade about the scheduling of non-union employees to conduct a portion of the inventory. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 8.) Later that day, Plaintiffs met with John Pentin ("Pentin"), the newly assigned Department Manager for General Accounting, to discuss the matter. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 9.) During the meeting, Pentin allegedly threatened Plaintiff Zuczek and physically assaulted Plaintiff Koontz.2 (See Koontz' Aff. at 15-16; Zuczek's Aff. at 9.) The following day, May 31, 1997, Plaintiff Zuczek alleges that Pentin told him that he would"fire" Plaintiffs if they "put any black mark on [Pentin's] record." (See Zuczek's Aff. at 10.)
On October 4, 1997, Pentin announced that a mandatory Safety and Communications meeting would be held on October 16, 1997 for employees in the accounting office. (See Def.s' Ex. 19.) On October 15, 1997, Plaintiffs informed Walck, via voice mail messages, that they would be absent from the meeting due to official union business. (See Koontz' Aff. at 17; Zuczek's Aff. at 10-11.) On October 20, 1997, Defendant USX suspended Plaintiffs for five (5) days for being "absent from work without permission." (See Def.s' Ex. 21.) Plaintiffs filed grievances regarding their suspensions. (See Def.s' Ex. 22.) On October 31, 1997, Plaintiffs' attended a "due process" hearing before Walck and Pentin regarding Plaintiffs' suspensions. (See Zuczek's Aff. at 12; Koontz' Aff. at 18.) During the hearing, Plaintiff Zuczek used "profane and abusive language" toward Pentin for which he received another five (5) day suspension on November 11, 1997. (See Def.s' Ex. 27.) On July 7, 1998, the Arbitration Board reviewed Plaintiffs' October 20, 1997 suspensions and sustained the grievance on the ground that the five (5) day suspensions were too severe. (See Def.s' Ex. 23.) The Arbitration Board did not review Plaintiff Zuczek's November 11, 1997 suspension.
On November 12, 1997, Plaintiffs left voice mail messages for Walck stating that they were "call[ing] in sick" so that they could attend an appointment with a psychiatrist for a mental health evaluation. (See Koontz' Aff. at 19; Zuczek's Aff. at 13.) Plaintiffs submitted notes from Dr. Victor Nemerof ("Dr. Nemerof") stating that neither Plaintiff should return to work until further notice. (See Def.s' Ex. 31.) On November 25, 1997, McBunch, Defendant USX's Labor Relations Manager, wrote to Plaintiffs requesting detailed medical information regarding their diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plans. (See Def.s' Ex. 32.) Plaintiffs submitted letters from Dr. Robert H. Brick ("Dr. Brick"), dated December 2 and December 6, 1997, describing Plaintiffs' diagnoses, prognoses and treatment plans. (See Def.s' Ex. 33.) The letters also state that Plaintiffs were not presently prepared to return to work. (See Def.s' Ex. 33.)
Defendant USX's Medical Director, Dr. Cornell Pearcy ("Dr. Pearcy"), contacted Dr. Brick to discuss Plaintiffs conditions, but Dr. Brick stated that, at the direction of Plaintiffs, he was not at liberty to discuss those matters. (See Brick's Dep. at 72-73.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial