Ramsdell v. Huhtamaki, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1:12–cv–233–GZS.,1:12–cv–233–GZS.
• Citation: 992 F.Supp.2d 1
• Parties: Bonnie S. RAMSDELL, Plaintiff, v. HUHTAMAKI, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

992 F.Supp.2d 1

Bonnie S. RAMSDELL, Plaintiff,

v.HUHTAMAKI, INC., Defendant.

No. 1:12–cv–233–GZS.

United States District Court,

D. Maine.

Jan. 15, 2014.

Barbara A. Cardone, Brett D. Baber, Lanham Blackwell, P.A., Bangor, ME, for Plaintiff.

David A. Strock, Shiloh D. Theberge, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Portland, ME, for Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Huhtamaki, Inc.'s (“Huhtamaki”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39). The Motion has been fully briefed in accordance with the Court's May 26, 2013 Order & Report of Conference (ECF No. 26). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART & DENIES IN PART the Motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party is entitled to summary judgment if, on the record before the Court, it appears “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). An issue is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A “material fact” is one that has “the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law.” Nereida–Gonzalez v. Tirado–Delgado, 990 F.2d 701, 703 (1st Cir.1993) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505) (additional citation omitted).

The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In determining whether this burden is met, the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences in its favor. Santoni v. Potter, 369 F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir.2004).

Nonetheless, once the moving party has made its preliminary showing, the nonmoving party must “produce specific facts, in suitable evidentiary form, to establish the presence of a trialworthy issue.” Triangle Trading Co. v. Robroy Indus., Inc., 200 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1999) (citation and internal punctuation omitted); see alsoFed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). “Mere allegations, or conjecture unsupported in the record, are insufficient.” Barros–Villahermosa v. United States, 642 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir.2011) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Wilson v. Moulison N. Corp., 639 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2011) (“A properly supported summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, periphrastic circumlocutions, or rank speculation.”) (internal citations omitted). “As to any essential factual element of its claim on which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial, its failure to come forward with sufficient evidence to generate a trialworthy issue warrants summary judgment to the moving party.” In re Spigel, 260 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting In re Ralar Distribs., Inc., 4 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir.1993)). Generally, “[i]n retaliation cases, where elusive concepts such as motive or intent are at issue, summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmoving party rests only upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation.” Alvarado v. Donahoe, 687 F.3d 453, 458 (1st Cir.2012) (citations omitted).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Having reviewed the statements of material fact and supporting exhibits in accordance with Local Rule 56, the Court constructs the following narrative from the undisputed facts as well as the disputed material facts viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, in this case, Ramsdell:

Huhtamaki manufactures consumer and specialty packaging at its facility in Waterville, Maine. (Joint Stipulated Facts (ECF No. 37) (“JSF”) ¶ 2.) Huhtamaki's Employee Handbook contains its anti-harassment policies, together with a procedure that employees can use to report any perceived harassment or retaliation. (Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 40) (“SMF”) ¶ 1.) Huhtamaki also requires all employees to attend bi-annual training sessions on harassment. (SMF ¶ 2.)

Huhtamaki is party to a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) with the United Steel Workers, Local 449 (the “Union”), which covers a majority of Huhtamaki's employees, including employees working in the Stacker Operator position. (JSF ¶ 5.) Pursuant to the CBA, Stacker Operators regularly have opportunities to work overtime, and are offered the opportunity in order of seniority. (JSF ¶ 9.) The CBA also requires that Stacker Operators be offered an opportunity to bid on new shifts based on seniority each November. (JSF ¶ 8.) Generally, Stacker Operators work three (3) twelve-hour shifts (6 a.m. to 6 p.m. or 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.) for three (3) consecutive days, and then have three (3) consecutive days off. There are four shifts of Stacker Operators, A, B, C, and D. Employees who work on the A-shift and B-shift work during the same three (3) days of the week, and relieve one another at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The same is true for employees who work on the C-shift and D-shift.

Ramsdell, who was employed as a Stacker Operator at Huhtamaki from April 19, 2004 until her February 18, 2010 suspension, received a copy of the Employee Handbook and was aware that Huhtamaki had anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies. (JSF ¶¶ 2–4; SMF ¶ 56). As a Stacker Operator in Huhtamaki's Rough Finish Department, Ramsdell took newly-created products and stacked the products into boxes for shipping. (JSF ¶ 2.) Ramsdell believed she was an “outcast” from the time she began working at Huhtamaki because she was a “new person.” (SMF ¶ 4.)

A. Ramsdell's 2004 Harassment Complaints Culminating in the Walter Investigation

Most of the torment Ramsdell alleges she endured began in August of 2004 after she reported co-worker Scott Ottis (“Ottis”) to representatives of the Union for swearing at her and for throwing and breaking brooms near her. ( Id. ¶ 5; Statement of Material Facts in Support of Pl. Obj. to Mot. for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) (“PSMF”) ¶ 5; Def. Reply to Pl. Statement of Additional Facts (ECF No. 54) (“Reply SMF”) ¶ 80). Upon reporting Ottis, co-worker Ron Poulin (“Poulin”) and some members of their clique began tormenting her. (Ramsdell Deposition Volume II (ECF No. 35) (“Ramsdell Dep. II”) at 267:22–21–268:1–2).

On August 6, 2004, Ramsdell reported to Huhtamaki's acting Human Resources Representative Paul Baker (“Baker”), that she was being sexually harassed by Poulin and Ottis.¹ (PSMF ¶ 75.) Without providing any additional background, Ramsdell reported that Poulin remarked to a co-worker, “I'll just tell everyone to kiss my fucking ass, including Bonnie,” and that Poulin made the following announcement over the mill's public address system, “My vagina hurts, I want to go home.” Id. Ramsdell told Baker that when she asked Ottis to assist clearing jams on her machine, he made several angry statements and gestures to her all using the word “fuck.” ²Id. On or about August 6, 2004, Baker, Rough Finish Department Manager Joe Rapp (“Rapp”), and Union President Joe Barney (“Barney”), met with Poulin and discussed Ramsdell's allegations. (JSF ¶ 11.) Poulin denied the complained-of conduct. ( Id.) Nonetheless, Baker directed Poulin to immediately cease any inappropriate conduct and warned him that any retaliation would be grounds for immediate termination. ( Id.)

On October 5, 2004, Ramsdell reported that Poulin approached her at her workstation; while pointing at Ramsdell, Poulin said to a male co-worker, “Fuck her, fuck her, fuck her.” ³ (PSMF ¶ 77.) Poulin repeated this at least six times.⁴Id. On October 6, 2004, Poulin complained to supervisor Jeff Owens (“Owens”) that Ramsdell jumped away when Poulin walked behind her on the stacker line. (SMF ¶ 6.) Poulin reported that he asked Ramsdell if she had a problem with him; Ramsdell stated that she did, in fact, have a problem with him, and she wanted Poulin to walk around the stacker machines instead of behind her. (SMF ¶ 6.) When brought in to discuss the incident, Ramsdell reported to Owens and union shop steward Bill Lawler (“Lawler”) that Poulin was repeatedly approaching her from behind while she was on the line—eight to ten times per shift. (PSMF ¶ 78; Ramsdell Dep. II at 259:10–19.) On that particular day, Ramsdell said she had asked Poulin to not walk behind her and he responded, “I'll take care of this fucking problem right now.” (PSMF 81; Ramsdell Dep. II at 260:1–5.) Ramsdell told Owens and Lawler that Poulin would stand directly behind her with his hands cupped as if he would hold onto her rear end if she backed up. (PSMF ¶ 78.) Ramsdell reported that on one occasion (nearly a month before) she had stepped back, Poulin moved into her with both of his hands cupped near her rear end, and Ramsdell “felt him move his privates right up against my rear end.” ( Id.; SMF ¶ 7; Reply SMF ¶ 78.) Ramsdell said she was terrified of Poulin, that he would not leave her alone, and that she had previously been to the Union about these matters. (PSMF ¶ 79.)

On October 8, 2004, Ramsdell, Giguere, Rapp, Joe Barney (“Barney”), Michelle Johnson (“Johnson”) and Ann Poehler (“Poehler”) participated in a meeting at the Huhtamaki Human Resources office. (PSMF ¶ 84.) Ramsdell reported that Poulin would swear at her and walk behind her on the line where he could make derogatory gestures that she could not see. (PSMF ¶ 10.) On one occasion while Ramsdell was sitting in the mill lunchroom, Poulin remarked to a co-worker, “Look at her pursed lips, they are pursed just like her vagina.” ( Id.; Ex. D to Bates' Investigation (ECF No....