Munday v. Waste Management of North America, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1998
• Docket Number: Civil No. Y-92-467.
• Citation: 997 F.Supp. 681
• Parties: Dawn F. MUNDAY v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

997 F.Supp. 681

Dawn F. MUNDAY v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al.

Civil No. Y-92-467.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

March 16, 1998.

Harold R. Weisbaum, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.

Russell H. Gardner, Baltimore, MD, Charles J. Kresslein, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOSEPH H. YOUNG, Senior District Judge.

I.

Plaintiff Dawn F. Munday ("Munday") brought this action against Waste Management of North America, Inc. and Waste Management of Maryland, Inc. (collectively, "Waste Management") for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Munday also alleged that Defendants engaged in constructive discharge and breached a settlement agreement resulting from a previous complaint Munday filed against Waste Management before the Howard County, Maryland Office of Human Rights.

The facts are detailed in a reported opinion by Judge Kaufman¹ after the trial, see Munday v. Waste Management of North America, Inc., 858 F.Supp. 1364, 1367-73 (D.Md. 1994), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 126 F.3d 239 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1053, 140 L.Ed.2d 116 (1998), and the Fourth Circuit held they are undisputed. Munday, 126 F.3d at 241. While working as a truck driver with Waste Management's Baltimore office from August 1988 to May 30, 1989, Munday alleges she was subjected to several acts of sexual harassment, including denial of access to the lone women's bathroom; receiving less pay than her male co-workers; being told she should not, as a woman, be taking a job away from a man; placement of her paperwork in the "driver's lounge", which was the men's rest-room and changing area; and being the butt of numerous sexual jokes. Munday, 858 F.Supp. at 1367-68.

On May 30, 1989, Munday was fired for insubordination, and filed a complaint with the Howard County, Maryland Office of Human Rights. Id. at 1368. Ultimately, the administrative proceedings were settled, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which Waste Management agreed, inter alia, to reinstate Munday, not to retaliate against Munday for filing the administrative charges, and not to retaliate against any person for engaging in protected activity of any kind. Id. at 1368-69.

Prior to Munday's return, employees of Waste Management were told not to socialize with Munday, to avoid her as much as possible, and to report back anything she said. Id. at 1369. On July 26, 1991, Munday was informed that her supervisor, Robert Bohager, wanted to "get rid" of her, and that he had instructed employees not to talk with her. Id. at 1370. Later that day, at a scheduled meeting between Munday, Bohager, and Waste Management's Maryland operation manager, Bohager exploded at Munday and accused her of planning to sue the company. When Munday denied this, and attempted to address her concerns, Bohager told her he did not care about her problems. Id. However, no evidence was produced that Waste Management employees actually spied on Munday, or that she complained of being ignored. Munday, 126 F.3d at 244. From August 1991 to September 1992, Munday worked periodically due to several periods of disability leave. However, Munday was continuously ignored by Waste Management employees, assigned a route other than one she requested, and subjected to numerous unpleasantries which were adequately addressed by Waste Management. Munday, 858 F.Supp. at 1370-71. Munday left the company December 7, 1992.

After a bench trial, Judge Kaufman found that Munday failed to prove sexual discrimination or sexual harassment, but that she did prove retaliatory discharge, constructive discharge, and breach of the settlement agreement. Munday was awarded $77,183.47 in damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment on the claims of retaliation and constructive discharge, holding that Waste Management had not taken adverse employment action against Munday in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Munday, 126 F.3d at 243-44. However, the court affirmed the finding that Waste Management's actions had breached the settlement agreement, reasoning that its deliberate attempts to make Munday's re-employment as unpleasant as possible violated the agreement, and that the agreement's language required a "lower threshold of proof" than the adverse employment action needed to show a violation of Title VII. Id. at 245. The court then remanded the case for a recomputation of damages in light of its decision to reverse the judgment on the Title VII claims. Id. Currently pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on the damages issue.

II.

A.

The original Munday Opinion limited Munday's damages for breach of the settlement agreement to Title VII damages, reasoning that although the settlement agreement was a private contract to be enforced under Maryland law, federal law governed its enforcement and interpretation because the rights therein derived from Title VII. Munday, 858 F.Supp. at 1380. Because the breach of contract claim necessarily depended on finding a breach of Title VII, state and federal remedies were found coextensive because Munday could not recover damages unavailable under the federal law providing the right to be enforced. Id. at 1381. Accordingly, Munday's damages prior to November 21, 1991 were limited to the Title VII remedies available at that time, which were solely the equitable remedies of back pay and reinstatement. Munday's damages after that date, when the Civil Rights Act of 1991 became effective and expanded Title VII remedies, included compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 1376-80.

The Fourth Circuit, however, disagreed with this analysis, holding that the language "of any kind" contained in the settlement agreement required "a lower threshold of proof than the adverse employment action required to show a violation of [42 U.S.C.] § 2000e-3(a) [regarding retaliation]." Munday, 126 F.3d at 245. Section 2000e-3(a) prohibits retaliation or discrimination based on an employee's opposition to an unlawful employment practice as defined by Title VII, or because the employee participated in proceedings under Title VII. To prevail on a claim under this section, the employee must, by a preponderance of evidence, initially prove a prima facie case of retaliation, which consists of three elements: (1) proof that the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) proof that the employer took adverse employment action against the employee, and; (3) proof of a causal connection between the protected activity and the discrimination. Munday, 126 F.3d at 242. Thus, the Fourth Circuit held that Munday need not prove the elements of a Title VII retaliation claim to prevail on her breach of contract claim by holding that Munday need not meet the "adverse employment action" requirement of § 2000e-3(a).² A necessary corollary to this holding is that the right giving rise to Munday's breach of contract claim is not Title VII, but rather, state contract law. Accordingly, the Court applies Maryland law concerning the measure of damages in a case for breach of contract unless, as discussed below, Title VII remedies pre-empt state law remedies for breach of contract.

B.

The Supreme Court, in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 104 S.Ct. 615, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), noted that federal law can pre-empt state law in two general ways. First, if Congress evinces an intent to occupy completely a given field, any state law falling within that field is pre-empted. Id. 464 U.S. at 248. Second, if Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, federal law pre-empts state law only to the extent that the state law conflicts with the federal law. Id. The pre-emption issue in Silkwood was whether the enactment and amendment of the Federal Atomic Energy Act pre-empted an award of punitive damages under state law in cases of personal injuries by nuclear accidents. Respecting the first pre-emption method, the Court noted that the legislative history of the Act clearly evinced Congress' intent not to pre-empt state law, and that Congress assumed state law remedies would be available — at least in the absence of a truly extraordinary nuclear incident. Id. at 254-56. Regarding the second, the Court concluded that the punitive damages award did not conflict with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's authority to impose penalties on nuclear licensees because it was possible to pay both state law damages and NRC fines, and because the purpose of the statute was not frustrated by such an award. Id. at 257-58.

Federal courts specifically addressing the issue have held that Title VII does not pre-empt state contract laws. Frazier v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 574 F.Supp. 318, 321 (E.D.Va.1983); Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1394, 1397 (D.Colo. 1991), aff'd, 19 F.3d 533 (10th Cir.1994); see also California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 758 F.2d 390, 396 (9th Cir.1985), aff'd, 479 U.S. 272, 107 S.Ct. 683, 93 L.Ed.2d 613 (1987) (finding no Title VII pre-emption of state law concerning maternity leave); Shehadeh v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 595 F.2d 711, 723 n. 60 (D.C.Cir.1978) ("[Title VII] envisions coexistence of state and federal remedies when the two are compatible"). These cases are consistent with general principles of pre-emption. As the Frazier court noted, Title VII's legislative history indicates that it was meant to provide an additional source of rights and remedies for victims of discrimination, rather than an exclusive federal statutory scheme. Frazier, 574 F.Supp. at 321; see also Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 48, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974), abrogated on other grounds, 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). The plain language of Title VII's savings clause also supports this result. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7. No evidence...