Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | INC,Nos. 95-5258,95-5278,MINI-CIRCUIT,LA,s. 95-5258 |
| Citation | 163 F.3d 1236 |
| Parties | 78 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1104, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,688, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 343 Elba LLAMPALLAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v., Mini-Circuits, Inc., Palmetto Extra Condominium Association, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Silvia Cabrera, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., Palmetto Extra Condominium Association, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., Paul M. Smith, Jodie L. Kelley, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants.
William G. Bell, Jr., Miami, FL, James H. Bratton, Jr., Smith Gambrell & Russell, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before TJOFLAT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and O'NEILL *, Senior District Judge.
In this case, two lesbian women who had a long-term sexual relationship, Marta Blanch and Elba Llampallas, worked together at the defendant company, Mini-Circuits, Inc. After their sexual relationship ended, Blanch sexually harassed Llampallas, telling Llampallas that if she did not resume the sexual relationship, Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Llampallas did not resume the relationship. Blanch then called the president of Mini-Circuits, Harvey Kaylie, and told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. In response to Blanch's call, Kaylie held a private meeting with Llampallas. Kaylie then suspended and eventually fired Llampallas. Llampallas brought suit against Mini-Circuits under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1994) ("Title VII" or the "Act"), claiming that she was unlawfully terminated "because of" her sex. After a bench trial, the district court held that Mini-Circuits was liable under a theory of strict liability for unlawful quid pro quo sexual harassment. 1
Mini-Circuits now appeals, arguing that it cannot be held liable to Llampallas under Title VII because Kaylie, not Blanch, fired Llampallas. We hold that Llampallas failed to prove a causal link between the harassment and her discharge sufficient to establish that Mini-Circuits violated Title VII by discriminating against her "because of" her sex. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.
In approximately 1977, Elba Llampallas met Marta Blanch in New Jersey and the two women began a consensual sexual relationship. They moved to Florida, bought a house together, and opened a joint bank account out of which they paid all their household expenses. They also gained employment at the same company; Mini-Circuits, Inc., hired Blanch as General Manager of its Hialeah, Florida facility and then hired Llampallas as an assembler at the same plant. 2 Llampallas was eventually promoted to Production Supervisor at Mini-Circuits, a position she held at all times relevant to this litigation. As the Production Supervisor, Llampallas reported to Blanch. Blanch in turn reported to Harvey Kaylie, President of Mini-Circuits, who resided in New York. 3 Kaylie's relationship with Blanch and Llampallas was both professional and social. He visited their home on several occasions and dined with them. Kaylie also transferred title of a company car to Llampallas, hired Llampallas' two sons to work at the Mini-Circuits Hialeah facility, and extended both women "company" loans on very favorable terms.
Mini-Circuits consistently awarded both Blanch and Llampallas substantial raises and bonuses for their work at Hialeah. The record reveals no criticism of either woman's performance.
In the fall of 1990, Blanch and Llampallas ended their sexual relationship and Blanch moved out of the house. 4 Blanch then began to threaten Llampallas, telling Llampallas that if Llampallas did not resume their sexual relationship Blanch would have Llampallas fired. 5 These threats occurred on several occasions and were witnessed by several other Mini-Circuits employees. 6
On May 23, 1991, after a particularly bitter altercation with Llampallas, Blanch called Kaylie in New York. Blanch told Kaylie that she was resigning because she could no longer work with Llampallas. Kaylie told Blanch not to resign. Kaylie then contacted Llampallas and instructed Llampallas to come to New York to meet with him.
Llampallas flew to New York on May 24, 1991, and met with Kaylie for about two hours. The district court made no factual findings regarding the content of that meeting. Both Kaylie and Llampallas testified at trial that they discussed Llampallas' work performance, and that Kaylie suggested that Llampallas manage a different facility for Mini-Circuits. Both also testified that at some point during their conversation, Llampallas told Kaylie that she and Blanch were having a "personal problem." 7
After her meeting with Kaylie in New York, Llampallas returned to Hialeah. Kaylie then told Llampallas that he was placing her on suspension with full pay. He informed her that he was contemplating opening another, smaller Mini-Circuits office and told Llampallas that he might transfer her there. During Llampallas' suspension, Mini-Circuits flew her to New York on several occasions to train her for her new position. Llampallas also looked for property that Mini-Circuits could buy or lease for the new facility. On November 8, 1991, however, Kaylie informed Llampallas by letter that there would be no additional Mini-Circuits facility, and that her employment with Mini-Circuits had been terminated.
On January 22, 1992, Llampallas received another letter, signed by Blanch and on Mini-Circuits' stationery, removing Llampallas from her position as Vice President and member of the Board of Palmetto Extra Condominium Association, Inc., a co-defendant in this action. Palmetto is a non-profit corporation formed to operate, manage, and administer a commercial condominium with seven units in Hialeah, Florida. Membership in Palmetto is predicated on ownership of a condominium unit; each unit owner is a member and receives one vote in all membership decisions. Six of the seven units in the condominium that Palmetto manages are owned by Scientific Components Corporation, Mini-Circuits' parent company. See supra note 3. Scientific leases these six units to Mini-Circuits for its operations. The seventh unit is owned by Irest Corporation, an entity not named as a defendant in this suit. 8
In accordance with Palmetto's Articles of Incorporation and by-laws, Palmetto is run by a board of three Directors elected by the corporation's members. The Board oversees the corporation and appoints officers (President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer) to conduct the corporation's day-to-day business. When Palmetto was first incorporated, the Board of Directors consisted of three of the condominium's developers; the developers also filled all officer positions. When the developers released the condominium to the unit owners, the owners nominated and elected Llampallas, Blanch, and Kaylie as the new Board. Llampallas, Blanch, and Kaylie then appointed themselves to fill all officer positions for Palmetto--Llampallas served as Vice President. On December 12, 1991, Kaylie and Blanch met as a quorum of the Palmetto Board (Llampallas was absent) and voted to remove Llampallas both from the Board and from her position as Vice President of the association.
After Llampallas received the letters from Palmetto and Mini-Circuits terminating her positions with those companies, she attempted to find other work. Llampallas was unable to obtain comparable or even permanent employment anywhere else.
On October 19, 1993, Llampallas brought suit against both Mini-Circuits and Palmetto in the Southern District of Florida under Title VII. She alleged that Blanch had conducted a campaign of "quid pro quo sexual harassment" against her and that Mini-Circuits and Palmetto were strictly liable for that harassment. Llampallas claimed that the harassment resulted in the loss of both her position as Production Supervisor at Mini-Circuits and her position as officer-director at Palmetto. She sought relief in the form of back pay, reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Following a bench trial, the district court found that Blanch had engaged in "quid pro quo harassment" of Llampallas. It also found that Mini-Circuits' proffered reason for Llampallas' discharge was wholly non-credible. 9 The court concluded that Mini-Circuits was "strictly liable for Blanch's harassment" because Blanch had forced Mini-Circuits to discharge Llampallas by threatening to quit herself. The court also found that "Palmetto's discharge of Llampallas from her Board position and officer duties was a direct result of Llampallas' discharge from Mini-Circuits"; thus, the court decided, Llampallas was also entitled to recovery under Title VII for the loss of her officer-director position at Palmetto. The court then held that both Palmetto and Mini-Circuits were jointly liable for Llampallas' loss of both her position at Mini-Circuits and her positions at Palmetto because the two entities were a "single employer" under Title VII.
Because it determined that the parties had inadequately briefed the issue of damages, the court requested supplemental memoranda of law on the issue. After considering the memoranda, the court awarded Llampallas back pay and front pay totaling $1,736,256.48.
Mini-Circuits and Palmetto now appeal. Their arguments and our holdings are as follows.
(1) Both Mini-Circuits and Palmetto claim that they cannot be held liable to Llampallas for the loss of her position as officer-director of Palmetto because she was not an "employee" in that position. We agree. We therefore vacate the portion of the district court's judgment based on the loss of her director-officer position.
(2) Palmetto claims that it is not subject to suit under Title VII because it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talley v. Cnty. of Fresno
...the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ; ADA) ] ); and 11th Circuit ( Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc. (11th Cir. 1998) 163 F.3d 1236, 1243–1244 [officer-director who did not receive any compensation was not an " ‘employee’ " within the meaning of Titl......
-
Gray v. Koch Foods, Inc.
...compensation. See Tolar v. Bradley Arant Boult Commings, LLP , 997 F.3d 1280, 1300 (11th Cir. 2021) ; Llampallas v. Mini–Circuits, Lab, Inc. , 163 F.3d 1236, 1244–45 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that the joint employer theory of liability is focused on "the degree of control an entity has over ......
-
Taylor v. Csx Transp.
...inference of causal connection which arises when the harasser is involved in the decisionmaking does not come into play. See Llampallas, 163 F.3d at 1247. The court, thus, must discern whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact that a causal link existed between the tangible empl......
-
Wright v. Southland Corp.
...false information to the decisionmakers for consideration in their decision whether to retain Wright. See Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1249 (11th Cir.1998) (describing "cat's paw" theory of liability in employment discrimination cases, under which a person with dis......
-
Sexual Harassment
...supervisor, when he in fact was not, the victim’s mistaken conclusion must be a reasonable one.”); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuit Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1247 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Although the employer may argue that the employee had no actual authority to take the employment action against the......
-
Sexual Harassment
...supervisor, when he in fact was not, the victim’s mistaken conclusion must be a reasonable one.”); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuit Lab, Inc. , 163 F.3d 1236, 1247 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Although the employer may argue that the employee had no actual authority to take the employment action against th......
-
Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
...each other on personnel decisions” and they “themselves testified that they acted jointly”); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc. , 163 F.3d 1236, 1249 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[I]f the plaintiff shows that … the decisionmaker acted in accordance with the harasser’s decision without h[im]self e......
-
Sexual harassment & discrimination digest
...relationship with former lover or supervisor, was proper; U.S. Supreme Court denies review. Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1998); petition for writ of cert to U.S. Supreme Court denied , 120 S. Ct. 327 (1999). See digital access for the full case summary. 40.30......