Straughn v. Delta Air Lines

Citation250 F.3d 23
Decision Date05 December 2001
Docket NumberNo. 00-1549,00-1549
Parties(1st Cir. 2001) CLAIRE A. STRAUGHN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Appellee. Heard
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Anna Barbara Hantz, with whom Gottesman & Hollis, P.A., Heather Burns, and Upton, Sanders & Smith were on brief for appellant.

Diane Murphy Quinlan, with whom Mark T. Broth, Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., and Jay D. Milone were on brief for appellee Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

CYR, Senior Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Claire A. Straughn urges us to vacate several summary judgment rulings which ultimately prompted the district court to dismiss her claims against Delta Airlines, Inc., alleging gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2001, et seq., race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §a1981, and breach of contract, wrongful termination, and defamation under New Hampshire law. Lastly, she seeks to set aside the summary judgment entered against her on Delta's counterclaim for reimbursement of certain workers' compensation benefits inadvertently disbursed to her in the first instance. We affirm the district court judgment in all respects.

I BACKGROUND

Straughn began her employment with Delta in October 1983, as a reservations agent. In January 1995, she became a sales representative in its Boston Marketing Office, responsible for an area which includes Vermont and Western New Hampshire. She was one of five women, as well as the only African American, among the fourteen sales representatives in the Boston Marketing Office. Her immediate supervisor was Zone Manager Helen Meinhold, who reported directly to Lou Giglio, District Marketing Manager.

On January 19, 1996, while on a sales call for Delta, Straughn fell and broke her wrist, which disabled her from work for most of the ensuing period through March of 1997. Although she returned to work during this period, on each occasion she was unable to continue for more than a few days.

Under the applicable Delta employment policy, employees injured on the job were entitled to thirteen weeks' accident leave, as well as accumulated sick leave, vacation time and full salary. Nevertheless, these employees were obligated to reimburse Delta for all workers' compensation benefits received while absent on accident leave, pursuant to the following Delta policy statement:

Personnel who receive weekly benefits for occupational injury or illness under the provisions of applicable Worker's (sic) Compensation laws must reimburse the Company in an amount equal to the sum of all such weekly benefits received for the period during which the Company pays the employee's wages, in whole or in part, under accident leave, sick leave, and disability benefit policies.

ESIS, the third-party administrator of Delta's self-insured workers' compensation plan, makes an independent determination as to whether an employee is eligible for workers' compensation benefits, based on the controlling workers' compensation laws and the circumstances surrounding the work-related injury. ESIS disburses workers' compensation benefits directly to the eligible Delta employee, notwithstanding the fact that the employee continues to receive full salary from Delta pursuant to its accident leave policy. While the pertinent policy statement, supra, obligates an employee absent on accident leave to reimburse Delta for all workers' compensation benefits received from ESIS while on full salary, once an employee's accident leave, accumulated sick leave and vacation time have been exhausted the employee is removed from the Delta payroll and thereafter retains whatever workers' compensation benefits are received from ESIS.

Thus, Straughn received three forms of remuneration while on accident leave. First, during the fourteen-month period she was unable to work, she received her regular Delta salary. Second, from January 25 through July 4, 1996, she received $11,608.86 in workers' compensation benefits through ESIS. Third, she received periodic checks from ESIS as reimbursement for medical expenses directly related to her injury, including medical bills, prescription costs, and travel expenses to and from medical appointments.1 Notwithstanding her obligation to remit the $11,608.86 in workers' compensation benefits received from ESIS during her absence from work, Straughn failed to do so.

Meanwhile, Delta inadvertently continued to disburse Straughn's full salary from July 5, 1996, until her eventual return to work in March, 1997, even though her entitlement to full salary had expired on July 4, 1996, pursuant to the accident leave policy. Furthermore, the administrative employees responsible for disbursing Straughn's salary were neither aware that she had received and retained workers' compensation benefits, along with her regular Delta salary, from January 25 through July 4, 1996, nor that her Delta salary continued to be disbursed some nine months beyond the time she was entitled to receive it.2 In March of 1997, upon discovering its error, Delta conducted a thorough review of all amounts disbursed to Straughn since her injury.

Shortly after returning to work in April of 1997, Straughn was asked by Giglio, on two separate occasions, whether she had received workers' compensation benefits in addition to her salary while absent on accident leave.3 On each occasion, Straughn denied receiving workers' compensation benefits, explaining instead that she had received money which she used for meals and other expenses relating to her injury.4

At her deposition, however, Straughn recalled these conversations with Giglio as follows:

A. [Giglio] said to me . . . "By the way, did you receive any money from compensation?"

Q. And what did you answer?

A. I told him, no. The money that compensation gave me I used to order out my meals, to help take care of myself, because I was not able to do anything. I had no support system . . . .

Q. Could you have said . . . "No, they gave me money for food, transportation and expenses directly related to my accident"?

A. I could have said something like that.

(Emphasis added).

After Straughn repeatedly denied having received workers' compensation benefits -- an assertion flatly contradicted by the business records maintained by both Delta and ESIS Giglio relayed her responses to Michelle McColly, Senior Analyst in the Delta Personnel Department.5 McColly instructed Giglio to approach Straughn again and obtain her written response. At the same time, Giglio was instructed to suspend Straughn pending further investigation.

Following the conversation with McColly, Giglio inquired of Straughn in the presence of two Delta supervisors -- Helen Meinhold and Tom Keating -- regarding whether she had received workers' compensation benefits while on accident leave. Straughn responded that she had not, stating once again that she had simply received checks to compensate her for costs related to medical treatment, transportation, and meals.

Giglio thereupon suspended Straughn, as instructed, and requested that she reduce her statement to writing. Prior to providing Giglio with her written response, however, Straughn consulted with an attorney who had been representing her in a related tort action against the owner of the premises at which her injury occurred.

Helen Meinhold later recounted Straughn's responses to Giglio's inquiry as follows:

A. [Giglio] asked [Straughn] whether she had received any additional monies in addition to her paycheck.

Q. And what was her response?

A. No; that she only had gotten reimbursement of some medical expenses.

Subsequently, Straughn recalled the interrogation by Giglio:

I was called into Lou [Giglio's] office and asked if I had received money from compensation to which I initially responded no, but went on to explain to him as I had in the past that I had received money from compensation to help with my expenses such as food, medicine, transportation, etc.

(Emphasis added).

The written response Straughn thereafter submitted to Giglio explained as follows:

When I spoke to my attorney she advised me [that] until she had an opportunity to look into this[,] do not advise of comp money. When I spoke to [Catherine Ackles] again she reiterated [the] above info. Also was advised by attorney & [Catherine Ackles] all will be settled. When Lou [Giglio] asked me if I received comp, all I thought of was attorney advise [sic].

(Emphasis added). Thus, the written response provided by Straughn admits that she intentionally misled Delta -- albeit ostensibly on the advice of counsel -- regarding her receipt of workers' compensation benefits while continuing to receive full salary from Delta.

Consequently, on May 8, 1997, Giglio recommended that Straughn be terminated from her employment due to dishonesty. Following further review, McColly recommended that Straughn be required to remit the $11,608.86 in workers' compensation benefits wrongfully retained, and either resign or face discharge.

Thereafter, acting on these recommendations, Director of Equal Opportunity Richard Ealey terminated Straughn's employment due to her dishonesty in responding to the repeated inquiries regarding her receipt of workers' compensation benefits. Director Ealey, himself an African American, explained that it was Straughn's dishonesty which distinguished her conduct from that of other employees who had not spontaneously reimbursed Delta after receiving workers' compensation benefits in similar circumstances.

Straughn commenced an internal grievance procedure with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
198 cases
  • Millet v. U.S. Dept. of Army
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • October 18, 2002
    ...value of a "stray remark"). The "stray remark" must be made contemporaneously to the adverse employment action, Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23, 36 (1st Cir.2001) (stray remarks must be contemporaneously to the employment discrimination action), certainly stray remarks occurr......
  • In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 22, 2005
    ...the Court's considered and careful legal reasoning and are, of course, subject to de novo review on appeal. Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23, 33 (1st Cir.2001); see Miller, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1082 ("the accepted wisdom about the law-fact spectrum is that judges determine the......
  • Portugues-Santa v. B. Fernandez Hermanos, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • May 15, 2009
    ...failure to issue Portugues a laptop without anything more is de minimis evidence of disparate treatment. See, Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23, 36 (1st Cir. 2001) (holding that "mere generalized `stray remarks,' arguably probative of bias against a protected class, normally ar......
  • Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • September 30, 2019
    ... ... R. CIV. P. 50(a)(1) ; Williamson v. Horizon Lines LLC , No. CV-06-119-B-W, 2008 WL 2222052, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 11, 2008) (citing Summers v. Delta ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Race and national origin discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • April 30, 2014
    ...that others similarly situated in all relevant respects were treated more advantageously by employer. Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 250 F.3d 23, 43-44 (1st Cir. 2001). The First Circuit has determined that a plaintiff using comparative evidence must show that individuals not protected......
  • It's not your father's summary judgment: recent developments in the use of summary judgment to resolve employment discrimination cases.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 78 No. 3, March 2004
    • March 1, 2004
    ...477 U.S. at 252. (11) Aka v. Washington Hosp. Center, 116 F.3d 876, 880 (D.C. Cir. 1997). (12) Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23, 34 (1st Cir. (13) Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62, 69 (2d Cir. 2001). (14) Ballinger v. North Carolina Agric. Extension Serv., 815......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT