Presley v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:02 CV 2157 AVC.,3:02 CV 2157 AVC. |
| Citation | 356 F.Supp.2d 109 |
| Parties | Twanya PRESLEY and Sofia Tsharides, Plaintiffs, v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., a subsidiary of The Campbell Soup Company, The Campbell Soup Company and Robert Arocho, individually Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
John Ivar Bolton, Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiffs.
Elizabeth K. Andrews, Patricia E. Reilly, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, New Haven, CT, for Defendants.
RULING ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an action for damages and equitable relief brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"), and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a-60 et seq. The plaintiffs, Twanya Presley and Sofia Tsharides, allege that their former employer, Pepperidge Farm, Inc., and its supervisor, Robert Arocho, subjected them to a gender hostile working environment and sexual discrimination. In addition, Presley alleges that the defendants retaliated against her for complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace. Both plaintiffs also allege violations of common law precepts concerning negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants now move pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment, arguing that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The issues presented are: 1) whether the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants subjected them to a hostile work environment; 2) whether Presley has raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants retaliated against her for complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace; 3) whether the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants subjected them to gender based discrimination; 4) whether the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact that Pepperidge Farm's company handbook or anti-harassment policy contained negligent misrepresentations; 5) whether the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact that Pepperidge Farm's actions amount to a civil conspiracy; 6) whether the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them; and 7) whether the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants negligently inflicted emotional distress on them.
For the reasons set forth herein, the court concludes that: 1)(a) Presley has raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants subjected her to a gender hostile work environment; (b) Tsharides has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants subjected her to a gender hostile work environment; 2) Presley has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants retaliated against her for complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace: 3)(a) Presley has raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants subjected her to gender based discrimination; 3)(b) Tsharides has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants subjected her to gender based discrimination; 4) the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Pepperidge Farm's company handbook or anti-harassment policy contained negligent misrepresentations; 5) the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Pepperidge Farm's actions amount to a civil conspiracy; 6) the plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on them; and 7) the plaintiffs have failed raise a genuine issue of material fact that the defendants negligently inflicted emotional distress on them. Accordingly, the defendants motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Examination of the amended complaint, affidavits, pleadings, Local Rule 56(c) statements and exhibits accompanying the motion for summary judgment, and the responses thereto, disclose the following undisputed, material facts. The defendant, Campbell Soup Company, is a corporation authorized to transact business within the State of Connecticut through its subsidiary, the defendant, Pepperidge Farm, Inc. Pepperidge Farm employed the co-defendant, Roberto Arocho, since 1979 in its Norwalk plant. Arocho was a supervisor there for approximately ten years. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs, Twanya Presley and Sofia Tsharides, were residents of the state of Connecticut and worked at Pepperidge Farm's facility in Norwalk, Connecticut.
Throughout the time that Presley and Tsharides worked at Pepperidge Farm the company had an anti-harassment policy with complaint procedures. All versions of the policy prohibit any kind of sexual harassment, instruct employees to whom they can complain, assure the employees that the company will take prompt and appropriate action, promise confidentiality, and ensure that employees will not be penalized or retaliated against for filing a complaint. The company posted written copies of the policy in multiple locations in the plant where Presley and Tsharides worked. Human resource officials walked the floor of the plant to make themselves more accessible to employees. The company also informed newly hired employees of the policy during their orientation.
On August 28, 1996, Pepperidge Farm hired Presley. In February 1998, Presley resigned. In June 1999, Pepperidge Farm rehired Presley as a temporary employee in the bread department. In December 1999, Presley became a full-time employee as a production substitute in the bread department. In early 2000, Presley switched from the night shift to the day shift, and Arocho became her supervisor. From June 1999 to mid-July 2001, Arocho did not say or do anything to Presley that she considered inappropriate.
From mid-July 2001 to late August 2001, Presley alleges that Arocho committed the following acts which she argues amounts to sexual harassment. In mid-July 2001, Arocho touched Presley's hand and told her that she was attractive and that she had "pretty hair." At the time, however, Presley admits that she did not find this incident to be offensive. On August 2, 2001, Arocho told Presley that she had nice legs. Presley told Arocho that she was uncomfortable with that comment, and that she would pursue a complaint if this conduct persisted. Arocho responded by telling Presley that she was not in good standing with the company because she had previously filed a worker's compensation claim. On August 3, 2001, Arocho told Presley that her friendship with several of the men at the plant could bring her financial gain due to her attractive physical attributes. Presley felt this statement insinuated that she was a prostitute of some sort. Later that same day, Arocho summoned Presley to his office, grabbed his crotch area, and asked Presley if she "wanted any of this." Between August 3, 2001 and August 15, 2001, Arocho would gaze at Presley in a leering manner. On August 15, 2001, Arocho warned her that fifty-three people could complain to human resources about him and nothing would ever happen to him. Later that same date, Arocho touched Presley on her shoulder and smiled.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether Presley told Donald Miller, a supervisor, about Arocho's alleged sexual harassment. On August 3, 2001, Presley spoke with Miller. Presley contends that she told Miller about Arocho's alleged conduct that had occurred earlier that day. Specifically, Presley testified during a deposition to the following:
[Question] — And then on the 3rd when this thing happened with Mr. Arocho grabbing his genitals, did you tell anybody else on August 3rd about what happened?
[Answer] — I didn't tell no one that day except Donald Miller what was going on.
[Question] — And then you went back to him later in the day, did you tell him what Mr. Arocho had done on the 3rd?
[Answer] — That's correct, yes.
In contrast to Presley's contentions, Paul Macionus, Pepperidge Farm's human resources manager, testified during a deposition that when he interviewed Miller during the investigation, Miller stated that Presley told him only that she was "uncomfortable" around Arocho. Miller also allegedly told him that Presley did not specify what made her uncomfortable, nor did she make any allegations of sexual harassment.
Despite the dispute as to details of this conversation, it is undisputed that Miller told Presley to report any harassment to the human resource department, and that Presley told Miller that she had handled the situation. It is also undisputed that Miller did not report Presley's statements to human resource officials.
It is not clear from the facts before the court what Miller's duty was if Presley did tell him about Arocho's alleged sexual harassment. Presley contends that Miller had an obligation to report inappropriate conduct to the human resources department in accordance with the company's anti-harassment policies. Pepperidge Farm's anti-harassment policies do state that employees can report allegations of harassment to a supervisor, but they do not state what a supervisor's duty is once he or she receives such a report.
In August 2001, there was an opening for a quality assurance technician position. All applicants were initially interviewed by Vanessa Diggs, a supervisor in quality assurance and friend to Presley. Diggs selected the top three candidates to interview with Steven White, a manager in the quality assurance department. The top candidates were Presley, Andy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Hebert
...3419 (GBD), 2011 WL 651452, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011) (dismissing § 1983 conspiracy claim); Presley v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 109, 136-37 (D. Conn. 2005) (summary judgment on state conspiracy claim).X. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion in Limine (......
-
Garcia v. Hebert
...08 CIV. 3419 (GBD), 2011 WL 651452, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011) (dismissing § 1983 conspiracy claim); Presley v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 109, 136-37 (D. Conn. 2005) (summary judgment on state conspiracy claim).X. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion in ......
-
Pawlow v. Dep't of Emergency Servs. & Pub. Prot.
...accusation, or note in an employee's file is sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action. In Presley v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. , 356 F.Supp.2d 109, 125 (D.Conn.2005), the Plaintiff was not hired for a job after her prior employer, the defendant in the case, provided a negative empl......
-
Santiago v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
...if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. See Presley v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 356 F.Supp.2d 109, 135 (D.Conn.2005) (citing Restatement 2d Torts; Barry v. Posi-Seal Int'l, Inc., 36 Conn.App. 1, 647 A.2d 1031 (1994)). Plaintiff must......