Luciano v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 02-CV-10895RG.,CIV.A. 02-CV-10895RG. |
| Citation | 307 F.Supp.2d 308 |
| Parties | Debra LUCIANO v. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC., Walter Gordon, Douglas Smith, and Joseph Papapietro |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Floyd H. Anderson, Law Offices of Floyd H. Anderson, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
John R. Bode, Miller & Martin, Chattanooga, TN, Joseph Y. McCoin, III, Miller & Martin LLP, Chatanooga, TN, Michael L. Rosen, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Debra Luciano brought this gender discrimination complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and its Massachusetts homologue, G.L. c. 151B, against her former employer, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (Coca-Cola), and two of her former supervisors, Walter Gordon and Joseph Papapietro, as well as Douglas Smith, a Coca-Cola Director of Human Resources. Luciano alleges that Coca-Cola's "anti-woman culture" led to her constructive discharge from a managerial position at Coca-Cola New England (Coca-Cola NE).1 Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that Luciano has failed to produce evidence of either an adverse employment action or discriminatory animus.
The facts in the light most favorable to Luciano are as follows. Luciano worked for Coca-Cola NE from 1997 until 2001. During the latter part of Luciano's tenure with Coca-Cola NE, Douglas Smith was the Director of Human Resources. In March of 2000, Walter Gordon was named Coca-Cola NE's Vice President of Sales and as a result became Luciano's immediate supervisor. In December of 2000, Joseph Papapietro became Vice President/General Manager and the head of Coca-Cola NE.
Coca-Cola NE hired Luciano in 1997 as a Category 2 Key Account Manager2 at its home office in Needham, Massachusetts.3 Luciano's principal task was to call upon corporate headquarters in the surrounding sales territory to promote the placement of Coca-Cola products. Luciano reported to the Director of Key Accounts, Nick Massey, who in turn reported to the Vice President of Sales, Paul LeBlanc.4
In April of 1998, Luciano was promoted to the newly created position of Director of Key Accounts for Category 2. Prior to Luciano's promotion, the Category 1 and Category 2 accounts had been overseen by Massey, who replaced LeBlanc as Vice President of Sales. Steven Paccone became Luciano's counterpart as Director of Key Accounts for Category 1. Luciano still reported directly to Massey.
Luciano found Massey (who is not named as a defendant) to be a difficult supervisor "because of his practice of subjecting female employees to public ridicule and hostility, not only in front of their own peers and superiors, but also in front of their customers." Plaintiff's Brief, at 4. Luciano felt that Massey's requests that she "type up" reports and his frequent interruptions of female presenters at monthly sales meetings were demeaning.
In early 1999, Luciano learned that Coca-Cola NE was creating a new position of Director of Marketing. Luciano lobbied Massey and Phillip Emma, the recently appointed Coca-Cola NE Vice President/General Manager for the job. Emma told Luciano that the position was not "right for her." The job was never posted, and in February of 1999, Paccone, who in Luciano's judgment had less marketing experience than she did,5 was named Director of Marketing. Luciano retained the Category 2 accounts and also assumed responsibility for all of the Category 1 accounts with the exception of Shaw's Markets and Stop and Shop, 7hich were assigned to Andrew Marchessault and Thomas Noyce.
In April of 2000, Massey was transferred to the Atlanta headquarters of Coca-Cola and Walter Gordon became the Vice President of Sales.6 Luciano, Marchessault, and Noyce now reported directly to Gordon. Each in turn directly supervised a category manager and a marketing analyst who were responsible for amassing and analyzing external and internal sales data. Marchessault and Noyce (but not Luciano) were given the title of Market Development Manager and a raise in pay.7 Convinced that her prospects for promotion at Coca-Cola NE were negligible, Luciano began to search for new employment. She interviewed for a position at Coca-Cola in Atlanta, and received an offer, but her transfer required Emma's approval. Emma refused the transfer request. In the summer of 2000, Gordon created another new position, Director of Category Managers, a job that went to Robert Hall, then the Director of Cold Drinks.
Luciano was not invited to certain Coca-Cola business and social events, which were often centered on "traditional male activities, such as golf." Complaint ¶ 18. In August of 2000, Coca-Cola NE held a business meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, featuring a "team-building" game of paintball. Luciano told Emma that she was uncomfortable with the exercise and refused to participate.8 In the same month, Emma convened a financial planning meeting on Martha's Vineyard to which Luciano was not invited.9 In January of 2001, Luciano was not invited to a social event held in Miami by Coca-Cola NE and Coca-Cola of New York for selected sales personnel. The event featured attendance at the Superbowl and a golfing weekend at the Doral Resort. Luciano also was not included in a Red Sox opening day event at Fenway Park arranged by Marchessault for Shaw's Market executives.10 On May 14, 2001, Luciano was not invited to a "Connecting with Customers" training seminar.11
Gordon held regular meetings with Luciano, David Eberhart (the new Director of Cold Drinks), Hall, Marchessault, and Noyce. Concerned that her twenty two accounts were being slighted in sales meetings (in contrast with Marchessault's and Noyce's single accounts), Luciano requested additional time without Marchessault and Noyce being present to discuss sales strategy with Gordon. Gordon "either ignored or rebuffed her requests." Plaintiff's Brief, at 11.
In September of each year, the Coca-Cola NE Directors of Key Accounts presented "channel plans" to the national Coca-Cola sales managers. With the help of her Key Account Managers, Luciano would gather sales data from the prior year to provide a basis for forecasting sales for the coming year. In 1997, 1998 and 1999, Luciano gave "channel plans" presentations to the Coca-Cola top brass. In 2000, Gordon assigned Marchessault and Donald Barsalou (yet another Market Development Manager), to present Luciano's "channel plan." Gordon told Luciano that he wanted to give the two men more exposure to Coca-Cola's senior management.
According to Luciano, Gordon continually undermined her authority with her account managers by overriding her decisions regarding pricing and the advertising budget, while holding her to unrealistic sales goals. He also required her to perform tasks that she deemed inappropriately "secretarial."12 Luciano's subordinates, sensing her disfavor, began to go directly to Gordon, Marchessault, and Mike Defer, an Area Vice President, seeking to circumvent her instructions. Gordon became increasingly critical of Luciano's management style and communication skills. In January of 2001, Gordon told Luciano that Gary Dumas had complained that Luciano was failing to give clear directions to his Sales Center staff.13 Luciano was surprised and asked for a meeting with Dumas' group. With Gordon present, the Sales Center staff was in "universal agreement" that "the Needham office and the [S]ales [C]enter were communicating and functioning extremely effectively together." Plaintiff's Brief, at 16.
According to Luciano, Marchessault (who is not a defendant) verbally harassed her and her staff,14 and ignored her requests for the information she needed to complete the key accounts reports. When Luciano asked Gordon to intervene, he replied that she "should work it out with Marchessault herself."
In March of 2001, Gordon gave Luciano a "decidedly negative" performance appraisal.15 He recommended no salary increase and the implementation of a ninety-day Performance Improvement Plan.16 After an unpleasant meeting with Gordon on April 16, 2001, Luciano appealed to Smith, Barbara Bowman's successor as Director of Human Resources.17 The three met the following day to discuss Gordon's negative appraisal. Luciano challenged each of Gordon's Below Target ratings. She presented Gordon and Smith with a four-inch binder of materials cataloguing her disagreements with Gordon's negative assessment. At Luciano's request,18 Smith agreed to initiate a "360 review" of her performance.19 After examining Luciano's materials and discussing the matter with Smith, Gordon changed his rating of her performance in the area of Teamwork from Below Target to On Target. He declined, however, to make any other changes to the evaluation.
On April 17, 2001, all of the marketing analysts, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AMIRA-JABBAR v. TRAVEL Serv. INC.
...to “offer evidence of more severe harassment than that required for a hostile work environment claim.” Luciano v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 308, 320 (D.Mass.2004) ( Hernández-Torres v. Intercontinental Trading, Inc., 158 F.3d 43, 48 (1st Cir.1998)). However, plaintiff in th......
-
Kahriman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...different requirements for stating constructive discharge claim versus discriminatory termination claim); Luciano v. Coca–Cola Enters., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 308, 320 (D.Mass.2004) ( "Alleging constructive discharge [as opposed to actual discharge] presents a ‘special wrinkle’ that amounts to......
-
Bryan v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
...were not "substantially related" to Herr's overtly sexual harassing conduct.7 See Luciano v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 308, ___, 2004 WL 438399, at *6 (D.Mass. March 10, 2004) (citing Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521, 533, 750 N.E.2d 928 (2001)); accord......
-
Mehic v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., Inc.
...filed with the EEOC and the investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of that charge." Luciano v. Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 308, 323 (D.Mass. 2004) (citing Powers v. Grinnell Corp., 915 F.2d 34, 38 (1st Cir. 1990)); see also Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 565......