Magnuson v. Peak Technical Services, Inc.

Citation808 F. Supp. 500
Decision Date02 December 1992
Docket NumberCiv. No. 92-885-A.
PartiesRebecca MAGNUSON, Plaintiff, v. PEAK TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John F. Karl, Jr., McDonald & Karl, Washington, DC, Douglas Foord, Burke, VA, Michaele Battles, McLean, VA, for Rebecca L. Magnuson.

John David Grad, Grad & Logan, Alexandria, VA, for Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Peak Technical Services, Inc.

R. Dennis Osterman, Lerch, Early & Brewer, Chartered, Bethesda, MD, for Fairfax Imports, Inc.

Gary Wayne Brown, Miles & Stockbridge, Fairfax, VA, for Richard Blaylock.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLIS, District Judge.

I.

This case presents novel questions concerning the scope of employer liability for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Plaintiff has alleged violations of Title VII and several pendent state law claims against four defendants: Volkswagen of America ("Volkswagen"), Peak Technical Services, Inc. ("Peak"), Fairfax Motor Imports d/b/a Fairfax Volkswagen ("Fairfax"), and Richard Blaylock ("Blaylock"). The amended complaint alleged five counts of wrongdoing arising from plaintiff's former employment relationship with these defendants: (1) Title VII violations for sexual harassment, discriminatory discharge, and retaliation; (2) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; (3) breach of contract on the part of defendants Peak and Volkswagen; (4) tortious interference with employment contract on the part of defendants Fairfax Volkswagen and Blalock; and (5) conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of her civil rights under Title VII.

As a result of previous rulings, this matter is now before the Court on defendants' motions for summary judgment on the following remaining counts: Count I (Title VII claims) for all defendants; Count III (breach of contract) for defendants Peak and Volkswagen; and Count IV (tortious interference with contract) for defendants Fairfax and Blaylock.1 For the reasons stated below, the Court denies defendants' motions for summary judgment on Counts I and Count IV and grants summary judgment for defendants Peak and Volkswagen on Count III.

II.

The facts giving rise to this lawsuit are sharply disputed by the parties. Since the matter is before the Court on defendants' motions for summary judgment, "plaintiff's version of the facts must be presented where the parties' versions conflict, at least to the degree that her allegations have support in affidavits, depositions or other documentary evidence." Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 102-103 (4th Cir.1989), vacated in part on other grounds 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir.1990); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (on motion for summary judgment, evidence of nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in her favor). Accordingly, the facts summarized below, where disputed, reflect plaintiff's version of the events to the extent it is supported by affidavits, depositions or other documentary evidence.

Plaintiff, Rebecca Magnuson, is a twenty-seven year old Virginia resident who, prior to the events giving rise to this action, worked as a sales trainer for Lexus Motorcars and as a consultant for Mercedes-Benz. Defendant Volkswagen of America is a New Jersey corporation, with offices in Troy, Michigan, that supplies Volkswagen automobiles to retail dealerships across the United States. In addition, Volkswagen assigns manufacturer's representatives to work on the premises of local retail dealerships. Defendant Peak is a Pennsylvania corporation, also with offices in Troy, Michigan, that provides employees to client corporations pursuant service contracts. Pursuant to a service contract with Volkswagen, Peak provides employees for Volkswagen's field marketing specialist and manufacturer's representatives program. Defendant Fairfax, a retail automobile dealership located in Fairfax, Virginia, sells Volkswagens and other imported automobiles. Defendant Richard Blaylock was employed as the general manager of Fairfax Volkswagen during the time period that Magnuson worked on the premises as a manufacturer's representative.

Plaintiff's relationship with the defendants began in July of 1990, when Magnuson interviewed with Frank Macguire, the National Retail Marketing Manager for Volkswagen. At this interview, Macguire informed Magnuson that he would recommend her for employment as a Volkswagen field marketing specialist, and that she would soon be contacted by a representative of Peak. Magnuson never interviewed with a Peak employee for this position. Several days after her interview with Macguire, Donald Barr, a representative from Peak, called Magnuson to offer her a position as a field marketing specialist, which she accepted.

Magnuson received her job training directly from Volkswagen in the summer of 1990. Following this training, she was assigned to work with Volkswagen dealerships in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Magnuson's job duties required her to visit approximately eight dealerships each week to monitor their sales and marketing of Volkswagen automobiles. Magnuson's understanding of her employment arrangement was that she would receive her salary and benefits from Peak, but that her work would relate solely to the marketing and sales of Volkswagen automobiles. Moreover, Magnuson understood that Volkswagen would continue to provide direct training and supervision. Magnuson worked as a field marketing specialist from the late summer to the winter of 1990.

In or about December of 1990, Volkswagen established its manufacturer's representative program. This newly instituted program was apparently intended by Volkswagen to bolster sales of its automobiles by stationing Volkswagen-trained representatives at local dealerships. These representatives were to provide more detailed technical knowledge of the automobiles, help in sales training, and provide assistance in demonstrating the various features of Volkswagen automobiles. John Swisher of Volkswagen, plaintiff's direct supervisor at that time, informed her that she had excellent public relations skills and was one of the top candidates for a position in the manufacturer's representative program. A month later, Swisher, who was made manager of this new program, offered her a job as a manufacturer's representative. Magnuson accepted and began work at her assigned dealership, Fairfax Volkswagen. In addition to recording market observations for Volkswagen of America, Magnuson's duties at the dealership included assisting Fairfax in special promotional campaigns, providing demonstrations of vehicles, and taking potential buyers on test drives. Magnuson apparently participated in all aspects of the sale of a Volkswagen up to, but not including, processing the documents and paperwork associated with closing the deal.

From the beginning of the year to May of 1991, Magnuson's supervisor, Dave Parsons of Peak, gave her very favorable evaluations. In May, defendant Richard Blaylock, became the new general manager at Fairfax. On May 15, Blaylock met with Magnuson, Magnuson's new supervisor, Kathi Tennant, and another person that Magnuson was training to become a manufacturer's representative. At this meeting, Blaylock presented his views on Magnuson's duties and responsibilities at Fairfax. According to Magnuson, these differed with those provided by Volkswagen and Peak. In addition, Blaylock stated that Magnuson was an asset to the dealership, and that he would personally hire her if Peak or Volkswagen attempted to move her from Fairfax Volkswagen.

Shortly thereafter, Blaylock began making sexual advances towards Magnuson. He insisted that Magnuson meet with him in his office with the door closed, and he would insist that she sit in a chair next to him rather than across from him. On various occasions, Blaylock put his hand on Magnuson's leg and attempted to pull her closer to him. On these occasions, Magnuson removed Blaylock's hand and tried to move her chair away, but Blaylock pulled the chair back. During her tenure at Fairfax, Blaylock harassed Magnuson on a regular basis by making lewd and offensive comments to her concerning her body. According to Magnuson, Blaylock commented on several occasions that Magnuson "looked so good" that he needed to "go back into the restroom" to relieve himself sexually.

Nor was this the extent of the objectionable conduct. Beyond these events, Magnuson described a wide range of sexually harassing conduct. She claims that Blaylock repeatedly referred to her as "sweetheart," "hon," and his "Fahrvergnugen girl," despite her requests that he stop doing so. On two separate occasions during Magnuson's employment at Fairfax, women were hired to strip and dance naked in the basement of the dealership. Following one of these occasions, Blaylock, in a conversation with Magnuson, compared her anatomy with that of one of the strippers. At several sales meetings, Blaylock also requested that she leave the room so that the men present could discuss sex. In addition, Blaylock asked Magnuson on three separate occasions to leave work in the middle of the day and check into a hotel room with him, presumably to have sex. Magnuson refused Blaylock's advances on every occasion and asked him to stop his behavior. Blaylock's response on one occasion, according to Magnuson, was to threaten her career; he reportedly told her he told her that he could make or break her career based on his reports to Peak and Volkswagen of her work performance.

Magnuson contacted her supervisors at Peak and Volkswagen and notified them of Blaylock's harassment. She asked to be assigned to another dealership because Blaylock made it difficult to perform her work. Surprisingly, her supervisor, Kathi Tennant, told her that she should "put up with it for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • Gliatta v. Tectum, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • July 8, 2002
    ...must prove that Tectum knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate action. Magnuson v. Peak Technical Services, 808 F.Supp. 500 (E.D.Va.,1992). In sexual harassment cases, an employer can obtain knowledge of harassment in two ways. See Anderson v. Deluxe Homes......
  • Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, C 96-4024 TEH.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • December 23, 1996
    ...at a minimum, a person who has a modicum of control over the statutorily required number of employees. See Magnuson v. Peak Technical Services, Inc., 808 F.Supp. 500 (E.D.Va.1992) (For the purposes of Title VII, "employer" encompasses those persons who control aspects of individual's compen......
  • Rowinsky v. Bryan Independent School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 2, 1996
    ...Powell v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 841 F.Supp. 1024 (D.Nev.1992) (blackjack dealer harassed by customers); Magnuson v. Peak Technical Servs., 808 F.Supp. 500 (E.D.Va.1992) (automobile supplier's representative harassed by dealership manager).The dissent's reliance on Franklin v. Gwinnett Cou......
  • Grace v. Uscar
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 26, 2008
    ...("[e]mployees jointly employed by two employers must be counted by both employers") (emphasis added); cf. Magnuson v. Peak Tech. Servs., Inc., 808 F.Supp. 500, 510 (E.D.Va. 1992) (finding that in joint employment under Title VII, the greatest emphasis should be placed on the "extent of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Sexual Harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ...harassment where there was no allegation of physical conduct and plaintiff did not accept reassignment); Magnuson v. Peak Tech. Serv., 808 F. Supp. 500, 512 (E.D. Va. 1992) (employer knew of harassment and failed to take corrective action within its control); EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Davidson , 38 S.W.2d 634 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1931, no writ), §2:3.C.1.a Magnuson v. Peak Tech. Serv. , 808 F. Supp. 500 (E.D. Va. 1992), §20:4.A.6.d Maguire Oil Co. v. City of Houston , 69 S.W.3d 350, 366 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied), §3:9.D Mahm......
  • Sexual Harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 9, 2017
    ...harassment where there was no allegation of physical conduct and plaintiff did not accept reassignment); Magnuson v. Peak Tech. Serv., 808 F. Supp. 500, 512 (E.D. Va. 1992) (employer knew of harassment and failed to take corrective action within its control); EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Davidson , 38 S.W.2d 634 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1931, no writ), §2:3.C.1.a Magnuson v. Peak Tech. Serv. , 808 F. Supp. 500 (E.D. Va. 1992), §20:4.A.6.d Maguire Oil Co. v. City of Houston , 69 S.W.3d 350, 366 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied), §3:9.D Mahm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT