Marino v. EGS Elec. Grp., LLC, Civil No. 3:12cv518 (JBA)

• Decision Date: 31 March 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3:12cv518 (JBA)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: MYRIAM MARINO, Plaintiff, v. EGS ELECTRICAL GROUP, LLC and OZ GEDNEY COMPANY, LLC, Defendants.

MYRIAM MARINO, Plaintiff, v. EGS ELECTRICAL GROUP, LLC and OZ GEDNEY COMPANY, LLC, Defendants.

Civil No. 3:12cv518 (JBA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

March 31, 2014

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants EGS Electrical Group, LLC and OZ Gedney Company, LLC¹ (collectively "EGS") move [Doc. # 35] for summary judgment ON Plaintiff Myriam Marino's Amended Complaint [Doc. # 18] claiming race, national origin, and gender-based termination and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (Count One), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count Two), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-58, et seq, (Count Three); retaliation in violation of Title VII and the CFEPA (Count Four); and negligent retention and supervision (Count Five). For the reasons that follow Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a Puerto Rican woman who was hired in December 2007 as a kits assembler at Defendants' East Granby, Connecticut manufacturing plant. (See Pathak Aff., Ex. A to Defs.' Loc. R. 56(a)1 Stmt. [Doc. # 38] ¶ 2.) Plaintiff was supervised by the plant's Facilities Manager, Douglas Johnson, who reported to Shiram Pathak, the Operations Manager. (See Johnson Dep. Tr., Ex. 4 to Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at 36.) Donald Young, the Vice President of Human Resources, provided oversight of personnel mattersfrom Defendants' headquarters in Colorado. (See Young Dep. Tr., Ex. 5 to Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at 9-10.)

On June 17, 2010, Marino first reported to Pathak that she was having difficulties with Jessica Smyth, a white braider operator at the plant. Marino reported that over the past few weeks Smyth had started to make "gestures specifically laughing at her, showing thumbs up at her without reason, etc.," which made "her very uncomfortable" and it seemed that Smyth was "trying to intimidate her." (Email Pathak to Young, June 17, 2010, Ex. 10 Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)2 Stmt. [Doc. # 41-1] at 1.)

In early 2011, when Marino moved from the second to first shift, she had increased interactions and difficulties with Smyth. (See Marino Dep. Tr., Ex. 1 to Defs.' 56(a)1 Stmt. at 57, 64.) Plaintiff's work area was centrally located in this small plant such that other employees would have to pass by her to get to the restrooms and other areas of the plant. While passing by Marino's work area, Smyth regularly engaged in bizarre, intimidating, and threatening behavior directed at Marino, such as smacking her fist with her hand, banging a water bottle against her hand, throwing a napkin towards her, pushing spools against her work area, and smirking and staring at her. (Id. at 111-14, 121-122; Johnson Dep. Tr. at 29.)

Marino repeatedly complained to management about Smyth's harassment, with no resulting action taken. Although Marino did not recall the specific dates of each of her complaints, from early 2011 through June 2011, she at least spoke twice with Johnson and once with Pathak about these incidents, telling them that she was afraid that Smyth would try to harm her. (Marino Dep. Tr. at 123, 146.) On February 23, 2011, Marino told Pathak that Smyth "gestures at her in a way that [suggests] she is going 'to get' her." (Email Pathak to Young, Feb. 23, 2011, Ex. 9 to Pl.'s 56(a)2 Stmt. at 2.)

Johnson initially directed Marino to ignore Smyth and said that he would discuss the issue with Pathak. (Marino Dep. Tr. at 110, 115.) When Marino complained to Johnson in early 2011, Smyth's behavior got progressively worse and the incidents increased in frequency. (Id. at 132.) After Marino made several additional complaints, Johnson and Pathak met with her and told her that EGS would investigate her complaints and that she should continue to ignore Smyth. (Id. at 144, 146; Pathak Dep. Tr. at 63.) Johnson, Pathak, and Young had several discussions with Smyth in which they warned her that "her behavior was disruptive and would not be tolerated." (Pathak Dep. Tr. at 71; see also Johnson Dep. Tr. at 34; Young Dep. Tr. at 42.)

Nancy Adorno, a coworker at the plant, told Marino that a temporary worker had told Adorno that Smyth referred to Marino as a "f**king Puerto Rican bitch," and said, "I hate her and I want to whoop her ass." (Marino Dep. Tr. at 108.) Another coworker, Arthur Shelly, told Marino that he heard Smyth make a nearly identical comment about Plaintiff. (Id. at 136-137.) Marino believed that she reported the first incident to Johnson, but did not report the second incident to anyone because no corrective action was being taken. (Id. at 109, 137.) Johnson denies that Plaintiff ever made such a report. (Johnson Dep. Tr. at 30.) On one occasion, Plaintiff heard Smyth say to Roy McCarter, an African-American male, "you are nothing but a motherf**king n*gger and . . . I'm going to f**k you up." (Marino Dep. Tr. at 103.) Several other employees—including Leonard DeGray, a white male, and McCarter—made similar complaints to management regarding Smyth. (Marino Dep. Tr. at 104, 140; Pathak Dep. Tr. at 37.)

After Smyth's conduct continued unabated, on March 4, 2011, Pathak and Johnson convened a meeting with Plaintiff, Smyth, DeGray, and McCarter in which they warned all four of them to discontinue their "childish behavior" or else they would be indanger of losing their jobs. (Marino Dep. Tr. at 148; Pathak Dep. Ex. 9.) After this meeting, Smyth complained to management that Marino and her other coworkers had started to ostracize her and would not talk to her. (Pathak Dep. Tr. at 38; Johnson Dep. Tr. at 41.)

Smyth's "intimidating and harassing" behavior towards Marino continued even after this meeting and on June 23, 2011, Plaintiff complained to her supervisor Michael Farslow, and later that day called EGS's compliance hotline to report that Smyth had "been harassing" her and would go into her work area and make "bullying, intimidating, and threatening gestures." (Marino's Ethics Employee Hotline Report, Ex. 11 to Pl.'s 56(a)2 Stmt.) Marino stated that since she had first complained about Smyth, it appeared that Smyth had "even more of vendetta" against her. (Id.)

In a June 28, 2011 email to Pathak (Ex. 13 to Defs.' 56(a)2 Stmt.), Johnson wrote that he had met with Smyth earlier that day and explained to her that she needed to stop "the giggling, laughing and clapping," because of "its effect on her fellow employees and she was to act more professional." On July 20, 2011, Pathak, Johnson, and Young held another meeting with Marino, Smyth, DeGray, and McCarter in which Young again warned them that they had to immediately commit to ending "the disruptive behavior" or else they would be terminated. (Young Dep. at 76; Johnson Dep. at 58.) All four verbally acknowledged their agreement. (Young Dep. at 78.) Young told them that they would each receive letters summarizing this meeting in which they would have to confirm their commitment to ceasing their disruptive behavior and warned them that if they did not sign the letters they would be terminated. (Id. at 79.)

A letter dated July 21, 2011 (Ex. 16 to Pl.'s 56(a)2 Stmt.) addressed to Plaintiff from Pathak summarized the meeting the prior day, stating that the meeting was called"to address the ongoing behavioral problems involving you and three other employees." The letter stated that Young had "explained that the reported behavior was unacceptable in the work environment and needed to be corrected immediately . . . . Each employee had a choice to either agree to this commitment or to end their employment effective immediately." (Id.) Marino considered whether to sign the letter and decided not to because she had done nothing wrong. (Marino Dep. Tr. at 170; Pathak Dep. Tr. at 90.) She was terminated for her refusal to sign. (Marino Dep. Tr. at 172.) Smyth, DeGray, and McCarter each signed their letters but wrote on their respective letters that they disagreed that they had done anything wrong. As a result, they were not discharged or further disciplined at that time. (Pathak Aff. ¶¶ 3-7 & Exs. A-C.)

II. Discussion²

A. Race and National Origin Discrimination Claims (Counts One Through Three)³

Plaintiff claims that her termination was the result of Defendants' discrimination on the basis of her race and national origin. To meet the minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in the termination context, "a plaintiff must show that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was performing his duties satisfactorily; (3) was discharged; and that (4) his discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of his membership in the protected class."⁴Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000). If shown, "the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee's dismissal. If such a reason is proffered, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that discrimination was the real reason for the employment action." Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). The separate stages of a plaintiff's demonstration of a prima facie inference of discrimination and pretext "tend to collapse as a practical matter under the McDonnell Douglas framework." Collins v. New York City Transit Auth., 305 F.3d 113, 118 n.1 (2d Cir. 2002).

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has satisfied the first three prongs of her prima facie case, but argue that she has proffered no admissible evidence to support an inference that her termination was the result of discrimination. (See Defs.' Mem. Supp. [Doc. # 35-1] at 16-17.) Defendants contend that DeGray and McCarter made complaints about Smyth that were "essentially identical" to those made by Plaintiff, and Smyth "similarly made complaints about their conduct." In the face of many complaints, Defendants contend that all of the employees were treated the same,...