Mills v. Amoco Performance Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. CV192-258. |
| Citation | 872 F. Supp. 975 |
| Parties | Jackie MILLS and David Hill, Plaintiffs, v. AMOCO PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joseph C. Nelson, III, Kesler T. Roberts, Nelson & Hill, Athens, GA, John Paul Batson, Augusta, GA, for plaintiffs.
William A. Clineburg, Jr., Hoyt Lane Dennard, Jr., Leticia D. Alfonso, King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, Jeffrey S. Heller, Carolyn McKinney, Chicago, IL, for defendant.
For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Unsworn Statements and Motion to Strike Affidavit of John Penny or in the Alternative to Take Further Deposition Testimony are DENIED.
The Plaintiffs, Jackie Mills and David Hill, contend that Defendant Amoco Performance Products, Inc. (Amoco) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Allegedly, Mills was sexually harassed as Amoco's employee and, after she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Amoco retaliated against her and Hill, Mills' husband, who also worked at Amoco. In addition to the Title VII claims, Mills alleges a supplemental state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Amoco hired Mills on December 11, 1989, to work in its plant in Augusta, Georgia. Amoco hired Hill on August 3, 1990, also to work in the Augusta plant. Plaintiffs first met each other while working at Amoco, began dating, and married on May 24, 1991.
On August 8, 1990, Robert D. Cadieux, an Amoco officer, sent a letter to each employee regarding its "revised non-harassment policy, designed to provide a working environment for all employees that is free of harassment of any kind." (Mills dep., June 8-10, 1993, Exh. D-3.). Plaintiffs deny having received this letter or other notice of the policy prior to the alleged sexual harassment in this case. The revised policy, a copy of which Amoco sent with each letter, defines and expressly prohibits sexual harassment and provides a complaint procedure whereby violations of the policy may be brought to the attention of management and appropriately addressed.
Mills' sexual harassment claim
Mills began her employment with Amoco on shift A, the day shift, in the Production Department of Amoco's Fine Acids Unit. Mills alleges that she was first sexually harassed as an Amoco employee while working on shift A. According to Mills, male co-workers on the day shift often used obscene and hostile language in her presence and, many times, directed the offensive language at her. Mills further alleges that male co-workers on shift A referred to her on numerous occasions as a "stupid bitch," that they tried to look into the restroom at her, and that one male co-worker gestured toward her by grabbing his crotch. Mills alleges that she complained of the offensive conduct to Mike Remington, her supervisor on shift A, but no action was taken to stop the harassment.
In November of 1990, Amoco assigned Mills to the night shift, shift B, for reasons apparently unrelated to her allegations of sexual harassment on shift A. She was the only female on shift B. Mills maintains that she was sexually harassed on shift B. She alleges that between November, 1990, and June 4, 1991, she complained on numerous occasions of sexually-oriented misconduct of male co-workers to William Pletcher, her supervisor on shift B.1 Mills alleges that she reported specific incidents of sexual harassment to Pletcher (some of which, the Court notes, were allegedly committed by Pletcher himself).2 Mills contends that Pletcher never took steps to stop the sexual harassment and that it continued unabated. Mills alleges that in March, 1991, Pletcher himself implied to her that he would relieve her of an unwanted cleaning assignment plant workers refer to as "vessel entry"3 if she would have sex with him, which she refused to do.4
There is no dispute that on June 4, 1991, Mills met with John Penny, Amoco's Personnel Director at the Augusta plant, and that she informed Penny that she had been sexually harassed on the job.5 Mills alleges that Penny said he would investigate her allegations, but ultimately took no action reasonably calculated to end the offensive behavior. Amoco does not deny that Mills reported some alleged misconduct by Amoco employees to Penny on June 4, 1991.6 Amoco contends, however, that Mills did not "provide any names or specifics concerning her allegations, stating that she did not want to get anyone in trouble other than Tony Quarles." (Def. Br., Jan. 28, 1994, at 6.) Amoco maintains that Penny immediately investigated the reported misconduct. Following Penny's investigation, Quarles received a written reprimand, and Amoco instructed supervisors to remind all employees of its non-harassment policy. Amoco contends Penny's action was responsive to every allegation by Mills that could be substantiated. The extent to which Penny later followed up with Mills regarding her allegations is a contested factual matter.
Mills contends that the sexual harassment continued after her June 4, 1991, meeting with Penny. In particular, she alleges that after June 4, 1991, pornographic and obscene materials were distributed and displayed, or were otherwise present, at the plant. Mills alleges that she reported the conduct to Pletcher, but, again, to no avail.
On August 27, 1991, Mills saw Vincent Muller, Amoco's Production Supervisor at the Augusta plant, at a local grocery store. Mills reported to Muller the presence of pornographic materials at the plant.7 Mills alleges that Muller directed her to send the offensive materials to him, but, because the materials were not present the next day at work, she did not.
On August 29, 1991, two days following her conversation with Muller, Mills filed her first charge of sexual harassment against Amoco with the EEOC. The charge states that the alleged sexual harassment complained of began in March, 1991, continuing thereafter.8
In October, 1991, Mills complained to Deborah Harris, her supervisor on shift B at that time, that she found a Playboy magazine at work. Harris called a meeting of the workers on shift B and informed them that such materials at work were unacceptable and that anyone caught with such magazines would be subject to termination. According to Amoco, all file cabinets and desks in the work area were searched for offensive magazines in an effort to expunge the work place of pornography.
On October 24, 1991, Mills met with Penny and three other supervisors in response to Mills' complaints of sexual harassment. Hill was present at the meeting. Amoco alleges that Mills again failed to be specific with her allegations and its ability to take corrective action was limited accordingly.
On November 8, 1991, Mills met again with Penny to discuss her allegations of sexual harassment. According to Amoco, after investigating Mills' allegations, it concluded "that it had addressed any improper behavior and the remaining allegations either could not be substantiated or were gross mischaracterizations." (Def.'s Br., Jan. 28, 1994, at 15.) On December 4, 1991, Mills filed a charge of discrimination with the Richmond County Human Relations Commission (RCHRC), alleging that she was still experiencing sexual harassment on the job.
Mills contends that on or about December 24, 1991, she saw a photograph displayed on a desk in the fine acids unit of the plant of a woman engaged in oral sex with a man. She alleges that she immediately complained to Penny about the photograph. The photograph was subsequently removed.
The alleged retaliation against Mills
In August of 1991, Mills informed Amoco supervisors that she was attempting to become pregnant and, consequently, would like to be considered for a position that did not expose her to chemicals. In December, 1991, Mills informed her supervisors that she was pregnant. Amoco did not transfer Mills to another position until presented with a doctor's report confirming her pregnancy.
Beginning in November, 1991, Mills received a series of counselling and disciplinary "write-ups" for wearing her company uniform off the premises of the plant.9 There is no dispute that Amoco policy prohibits employees from wearing company uniforms off the premises of the plant. Mills contends, however, that this policy was rarely enforced and that some co-workers regularly wore their uniforms home without being cited. On January 24, 1992, Mills was written up by Harris for violating Amoco's rule against wearing its uniforms off company premises. On January 24, 1992, Mills filed another charge of discrimination with the RCHRC, alleging that other employees wore their uniforms home with impunity and that Harris retaliated against her for filing a charge with the EEOC by disciplining her.
The alleged retaliation against Hill
On October 24, 1991, Harris issued a written reminder to Hill for various acts of noncompliance with Amoco operating procedures. Hill contends Harris retaliated against him for Mills' EEOC complaint by writing him up. Amoco maintains that it was not aware prior to citing Hill on October 24, 1991, that Mills had filed a charge with the EEOC or that Plaintiffs were married. Amoco received formal notice of Mills' charge from the EEOC on October 28, 1991. Hill alleges, however, that on October 21, 1991, Penny telephoned Mills at her home and told her that he desired to meet with her about her allegations of sexual harassment and indicated that he knew of her charge of discrimination with the EEOC. On December 26, 1991, Hill filed a charge with the RCHRC, alleging that Amoco retaliated against him for Mills' EEOC charge by writing him up on October 24, 1991.
Hi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
...to supervisor about her travel pay was sufficient, standing alone, to establish causal connection); Mills v. Amoco Performance Prod., Inc., 872 F.Supp. 975, 990 (S.D.Ga. 1994) (two-month gap between filing of EEOC complaint and disciplinary action is sufficient to raise triable issue of fac......
-
Munn v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF SAVANNAH
...Title VII. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994); see also Mills v. Amoco Performance Products, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 975, 985 (S.D.Ga.1994). Plaintiff properly does not contest this matter. This Court rules that Plaintiff may not recover for any al......
-
Hernandez v. Wangen
...1577, 1582 (S.D.Ga.1995) (same); O'Neill v. Runyon, 898 F.Supp. 777, 780-81 (D.Colo.1995) (same); Mills v. Amoco Performance Products, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 975, 985-86 (S.D.Ga.1994) (same); Munday v. Waste Management of North America, Inc., 858 F.Supp. 1364, 1376-77 n. 5 (D.Md. 1994) (same). 6......
-
DeNovellis v. Shalala
...a theory of hostile work environment which would constitute a continuing violation of Title VII. 6 See Mills v. Amoco Performance Prods., Inc., 872 F.Supp. 975, 986 (S.D.Ga.1994) (A "hostile environment sexual harassment claim is an archetypal continuing violation claim."). He cites cases i......