Maxton v. Underwriter Labs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–cv–1337(ADS)(AKT).,12–cv–1337(ADS)(AKT). |
| Citation | 4 F.Supp.3d 534 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | Brenda MAXTON, Plaintiff, v. UNDERWRITER LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brandon Okano, Esq., Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Carle Place, NY, for Plaintiff.
Michael P. Roche, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff Brenda Maxton (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action against her former employer, Underwriter Laboratories, Inc. (the “Defendant”),alleging that the Defendant harassed her, discriminated against her, and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law. § 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”). In particular, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant acted against her based on her age, race, religion, and in retaliation for her complaints of the discrimination. Further, although it does not appear that the Plaintiff asserted gender-based discrimination, a liberal reading of the complaint suggests a claim of hostile work environment on the basis of gender.
On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, withdrawing the state law causes of action.
Following discovery, on May 23, 2013, the Defendant moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 56 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In opposition, the Plaintiff expressly withdrew any Title VII discrimination claims based on religion and gender. It also appears that the Plaintiff has abandoned her claims based on age and race. Thus, the pending claims are (1) hostile work environment on the basis of gender and (2) retaliation for complaining about the harassment.
For the following reasons, the Defendant's motion is granted.
The following facts are drawn from the parties' respective Rule 56.1 statements and materials.
The Defendant is a consumer product safety organization that has been writing safety standards and testing products for over 100 years.
The Plaintiff, an African–American Jehovah's Witness, began working for the Defendant in 1997 as a clerical specialist. In 1998, the Plaintiff voluntarily resigned her employment, but returned later that year as a human resources assistant. In 2005, the Plaintiff was laid off. In 2006, the Defendant rehired the Plaintiff as a Project Handler II in the High Tech Department. Gary Johnson (“Johnson”), a section manager in the High Tech Department, made the decision to re-hire the Plaintiff.
From 2006 until October 2010, Johnson was the Plaintiff's supervisor.
From October 2010 until her termination in February 2011, the Plaintiff's direct supervisor was Norman Lowe, an Engineering Leader. Lowe is African–American. During the same period, Lowe reported to Jon Schuette, an Engineering Manager.
The Plaintiff's primary duty as a Project Handler II was to provide administrative support to the engineers in her section.
In the Defendant's employee handbook, which is distributed to all employees, the Defendant has an “Equal Employment Opportunity and Prohibition of Discrimination and Harassment” policy, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of any protected characteristic. The handbook also contains a complaint procedure, outlining various avenues for employees to report discrimination or harassment, including reporting the incident to any member of the management or the human resources department. When an employee makes a complaint, the human resources department investigates and works to resolve the complaint. Also, the Defendant distributes a Standards of Business Conduct manual to its employees that prohibits discrimination or harassment of employees; operates an ethics hotline that employees can call or email to make a complaint; and requires all employeesto receive discrimination and harassment training annually.
The Plaintiff knew about the Defendant's procedures for employee complaints because she had been an employee of the human resources department for several years, during which time she worked with human resources policies on a daily basis.
In January 2009, the Plaintiff complained about the behavior of a co-worker, David Keen (“Keen”), to Johnson, her supervisor at the time. In particular, the Plaintiff complained that Keen stared at her; walked close behind, “galloping” on one occasion; followed her around the High–Tech department; and stood behind her chair while he was talking to Lowe, with whom the Plaintiff shared a cubicle. The Plaintiff also complained that when she told a clean-shaven Keen that a picture of him with a mustache was nice, Keen responded by asking the Plaintiff whether she liked him better with or without a mustache.
Johnson warned the Plaintiff that Keen would be angry that she had complained about him. However, Johnson told the Plaintiff that he would talk to Keen about his behavior, which Johnson did. Johnson instructed Keen to behave professionally.
In April 2009, the Plaintiff again complained about Keen's behavior, this time to Dorlena Dunbar, a Human Resources Manager. The Plaintiff complained to Dunbar that Keen had stood in the aisle outside of her cubicle, and he stared and laughed at her.
That month, Dunbar, with the assistance of another member of the Human Resources Department, conducted an investigation of Plaintiff's complaints about Keen. As part of this investigation, seven employees in the Plaintiff's department were questioned about Keen's behavior.
On May 8, 2009, the Plaintiff had a meeting with Keen, Dunbar, and Johnson to discuss a resolution to the Plaintiff's complaint. During that meeting, Keen agreed that, in the future, when he stopped by the Plaintiff's cubicle to speak with Lowe, he would sit in Lowe's visitor chair rather than stand behind the Plaintiff's chair. Keen apologized to the Plaintiff for his behavior. The Plaintiff agreed to this resolution and did not ask the Defendant to take any other measures at that time.
On May 22, 2009, Dunbar followed up with the Plaintiff and each month thereafter through September 2009 to ask the Plaintiff how things were going with Keen. Each time, the Plaintiff informed Dunbar that there were no issues with Keen's behavior.
In October 2009, the Plaintiff complained in writing to Dunbar that Keen had entered her cubicle and, rather than sit in Lowe's visitor chair as he had agreed to do, he stood behind the Plaintiff. Following this incident, the Plaintiff asked to have her work station moved to a different cubicle, and the Defendant promptly honored that request.
Separately, the Defendant issued a written warning to Keen concerning his behavior. The warning was placed in Keen's personnel file. The Plaintiff was satisfied with the Defendant's resolution of her complaint about Keen and, as a result of her seat change, the visits from Keen ceased.
After October 2009, Keen did not behave inappropriately toward the Plaintiff and she never reported another problem with him. Keen never (1) harassed the Plaintiff outside of work, (2) asked her on a date; (3) made any comments of a sexual nature to her; (4) touched her; or (5) made any comments about the Plaintiff's body or clothing. Further, the Plaintiff never heard that Keen made any comments about her to others.
The Plaintiff claims that, after she complained about Keen's behavior, her other co-workers ostracized her. Specifically, the Plaintiff noticed that some co-workers would approach her new seating location and give her “glaring looks.” The parties dispute whether the Plaintiff complained about the alleged “glaring looks” before filing her charge of discrimination in May 2011.
Specifically, in the Plaintiff's deposition, she stated that two co-workers outside of the Plaintiff's section came by her new seating location; “seemed upset” that she was there; asked if the Plaintiff was still reporting to Johnson; and stated that they did not know that the Plaintiff was going to be sitting there. The Plaintiff alleges that she “complained” about this incident to Dunbar while waiting in line in the Defendant's cafeteria, and that Dunbar told her to ignore those employees.
The Plaintiff also complained to Johnson and Dunbar that she believed her co-worker Lana Thomas left a kitchen knife, about the size of a Bic pen, on the Plaintiff's credenza for one week with the intention that Keen would become angry and use the knife to stab the Plaintiff. As to this belief, the Plaintiff testified that (The Plf's Dep., at 82.)
The Plaintiff further asserts that her co-workers discriminated against her by withholding job assignments because they did not like the fact that she complained about Keen.
In August 2010, the Plaintiff overheard two co-workers, Eric Bull and Melvyn Grossman, state that Jehovah's Witnesses are “shady.” However, the Plaintiff never complained to the human resources department about this remark. The Plaintiff insists that she sought to immediately report this incident, but at that time, the human resources department was closed.
Also, that month, the Plaintiff overheard another co-worker, Max Rodriguez, tell Bull to “suck [my] dick.” The Plaintiff also overheard Bull tell another employee that the Plaintiff wore “control-top underwear.” The Plaintiff never complained about these comments to the human resources department, and admits that these comments were not directed toward her.
Meanwhile, back in February 2010, the Plaintiff asked Johnson, her supervisor at the time about a promotion from Project Handler II to Project Handler I. Johnson informed the Plaintiff that before she would be promoted, she had to satisfy certain criteria. Johnson ultimately decided not to promote the Plaintiff to Project Handler I. Johnson noted that the employees who were then in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fiedler v. Incandela
...U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation omitted); see also Maxton v. Underwriter Labs., Inc. , 4 F.Supp.3d 534, 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("An issue of fact is considered ‘genuine’ when a reasonable finder of fact could render a verdict in favor of the no......
-
Frederique v. Cnty. of Nassau
..., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation omitted); see also Maxton v. Underwriter Labs., Inc. , 4 F.Supp.3d 534, 542 (E.D.N.Y.2014) (“An issue of fact is considered ‘genuine’ when a reasonable finder of fact could render a verdict in favor of t......
-
Oliver v. N.Y. State Police
...transform the continuing violation doctrine into 'a boundless exception to the statute of limitations.'" Maxton v. Underwriter Labs., Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 534, 544 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Crosland v. City of New York, 140 F. Supp. 2d 300, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). Here, Plaintiff has identified......
-
Belyea v. The City of Glen Cove
...of antagonism” supported causality for purposes of the plaintiff's retaliation claim (quoting Chan, 2004 WL 213024, at *3)); Maxton, 4 F.Supp.3d at 548 (finding that a pattern of antagonistic actions over a culminating in adverse action can constitute causal connection for retaliation purpo......