Shoppe v. Gucci America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 21602.,21602. |
| Parties | Linda B. SHOPPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUCCI AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and Sharleen Perreira, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Lawrence W. Cohn, on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Andrew V. Beaman, Honolulu, (Trudy Burns Stone with him on the brief) of Chun, Kerr, Dodd, Beaman & Wong, for defendants-appellees.
In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff-appellant Linda B. Shoppe (Plaintiff) appeals the circuit court's judgment, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order granting defendants-appellees Gucci America, Inc. (Gucci) and Sharleen Perreira's (collectively, Defendants) motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants because: (1) she was the victim of age discrimination; (2) Defendants breached an implied employment contract; (3) Defendants fraudulently hired and fired her; and (4) there is significant evidence of intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by Defendants. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment and order of the circuit court.
Gucci is a New York corporation authorized to do business in the State of Hawai`i. Gucci employs Sharleen Perreira as its district manager. As Gucci's district manager for Hawai`i, Perreira has the primary responsibility for the interviewing, hiring, and firing of all store managers and assistant managers of Gucci's Hawai`i stores. In addition, Perreira directly manages Gucci's local warehouse and its Ala Moana store, serves as a principal buyer for its local inventory, and oversees operations of Gucci's Hawai`i stores.
In 1995, Gucci planned to open a new store on the island of Maui. In attempting to hire a manager for the new store, Perreira advertised for the position of store manager in local newspapers during the summer of 1995. In August 1995, Perreira retained Millman Search Group, Inc., an executive search firm whose president is Mark Millman, to find management candidates for Perreira to interview.
Millman contacted several prospective candidates for the Maui store, including Rae Seki—a woman in her mid-thirties. Seki had several years of experience in management of "high-end" fashion stores in Hawai`i and indicated that she was interested in the job, but would not be able to commence employment until 1996 because of her pregnancy. Millman did not identify Seki as a candidate for the position to Perreira or Gucci. In addition, Millman sent a list of eleven prospective candidates to Perreira to interview, which did not include Seki's name. Seki testified in her deposition that she did not hear anything more from Gucci until after the store opened. Perreira testified that she did not know who Seki was until after the store opened.
On September 29, 1995, after learning "by word of mouth" that Gucci was looking for a manager for its Maui store, Plaintiff sent a cover letter and resume expressing her interest in the position. At that time, Perreira was forty-two years old and Plaintiff was forty-six years old. Plaintiff had experience as a store manager for Crazy Shirts and Sharper Image but had no "high-end" fashion retail experience.
Plaintiff thereafter spoke to "a very close friend," former Gucci buyer Margaret Hanley, about the position. Hanley then called Karen Lombardo, Gucci's Vice President of Human Resources, and recommended Plaintiff. In turn, Lombardo relayed the recommendation to Perreira. According to Perreira, Hanley's recommendation "weighed heavily," even though she had some concern about Plaintiff's lack of "high-end" fashion retail experience. Perreira felt that Plaintiff "would understand how to run a store."
Sometime during the week of October 16, 1995, Perreira interviewed Plaintiff. Plaintiff's age was not discussed during the interview and, according to Perreira, was not a factor in Perreira's decision to hire Plaintiff. After Perreira offered Plaintiff the position, Perreira confirmed by letter to Plaintiff that "your employment is now scheduled to commence November 27."
On November 11, 1995, Plaintiff completed and signed Gucci's employment application, which stated in relevant part: "This is an application for employment with Gucci America, Inc. which may be terminated without cause or notice by the employer or employee." The last page of the employment application, which Plaintiff signed, stated: "In consideration of my employment, I agree that ... [m]y employment and compensation can be terminated, with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time, at the option of either Gucci or myself."
Plaintiff also received a Gucci Employee Handbook, the last page of which contains a "Statement of Awareness," again acknowledging that her employment with Gucci would be "at will." In her deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged that she understood that her employment with Gucci was "at will." The Gucci employee handbook also states: "Gucci does not discriminate in the terms or conditions of employment because of age...."
On December 8, 1995, Gucci opened its boutique in Whaler's Village on Maui. Plaintiff reported directly to Perreira. Perreira quickly became unhappy with Plaintiff's job performance. Over the course of the next five and one-half months of Plaintiff's employment with Gucci, Perreira repeatedly reprimanded Plaintiff, primarily by telephone. Perreira testified in her deposition that Plaintiff was "often late to work, late with her morning sales reports, slipshod in her internal reporting, careless about monitoring important dates, unprofessional in her personal appearance, difficult to train, and unable to take directions[.]"
On one occasion, Perreira sent an inventory instruction packet to Plaintiff. The packet contained documents that needed to be completed and returned to Honolulu in order for needed inventory to be shipped. Perreira testified that she visited the Whaler's Village store and found these documents lying on the floor. Plaintiff missed the deadline to return the documents to Honolulu.1
In addition, Perreira testified that Plaintiff failed to prepare complete and detailed operating reports for her store. Although Plaintiff maintained that her report was accurate and that it was the one and only operating report that she prepared, Plaintiff acknowledged that her operating report was not nearly as detailed as those of Gucci's other Hawai`i stores.
With respect to Plaintiff's tardiness, Perreira testified that Plaintiff was often tardy for work even after repeated warnings by Perreira that Plaintiff needed to arrive at the store no later than 8:00 a.m. every day so that she could "fax over a copy of her daily sales to the warehouse every morning ... [at] eight a.m." A copy of the store's daily sales was required so that inventory could be replaced. If Plaintiff failed to send the report by 8:00 a.m., delivery of replacement inventory could be delayed. Plaintiff admitted that her reports were late "many times" and that she did not appear for work until 8:30 a.m. on weekends.
With respect to the dress code, Plaintiff found it difficult to comply with Gucci's standards. Gucci's employee handbook provides:
On numerous occasions, Perreira reprimanded Plaintiff for her failure to follow Gucci's standards of dress and grooming.
During Plaintiff's employment, Perreira told Plaintiff that Gucci was "aiming for a younger look" in its merchandising. In her deposition, Plaintiff recalled the statement in the following context:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...Co., 985 P.2d 556, 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999); Park v. Sandwich Chef, Inc., 651 A.2d 798, 802, n.3 (D.C. App. 1994); Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 14 P.3d 1049, 1067 (Haw. 2000); Sowards v. Rathbun, 8 P.3d 1245, 1249 (Idaho 2000); Europlast, Ltd. v. Oak Switch Sys. Inc., 10 F.3d 1266, 1272 (7th......
-
State v. Stan's Contracting, Inc.
...fraud subsumes a quality of deception, but whether deception alone is fraud.14 Both answering briefs cite Shoppe v. Gucci America, Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 386, 14 P.3d 1049, 1067 (2000), for the proposition that while deception may be a component of fraud, fraud requires the additional elemen......
-
Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dept. of Educ.
...HRS § 378-2, `to interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance'" (quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 377, 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000)) (additional citations omitted)); State v. Crisostomo, 94 Hawai`i 282, 287-88, 12 P.3d 873, 878-79 (2000) (notin......
-
Young v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case." Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368, 387, 14 P.3d 1049, 1068 (2000) (quoting Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156, 173, 472 P.2d 509, 520 27. See Metayer v. PFL Life Ins. Co., Civ. No. 9......
-
Case Notes
...Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and adopted by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawaii 368, 378, 14 P.3d 1049, 1059 (2000). The majority's test would accordingly unsettle what has become a well-established standard both in federal courts and in Hawaii. ......