Szwalla v. Time Warner Cable, LLC

• Decision Date: 29 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 3:13–CV–713 (MAD/DEP).,3:13–CV–713 (MAD/DEP).
• Citation: 135 F.Supp.3d 34
• Parties: Aimee SZWALLA, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, LLC and, Time Warner Entertainment, Company, L.P., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

135 F.Supp.3d 34

Aimee SZWALLA, Plaintiff,

v.TIME WARNER CABLE, LLC and, Time Warner Entertainment, Company, L.P., Defendants.

No. 3:13–CV–713 (MAD/DEP).

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 29, 2015.

Pope, Schrader & Pope, LLP, Alan J. Pope, Esq., of Counsel, Binghamton, NY, for Plaintiff.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Jonathan B. Fellows, Esq., Suzanne O. Galbato, Esq., of Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM–DECISION AND ORDER

MAE A. D'AGOSTINO

, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff commenced this action on June 20, 2013, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation by Defendants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") in connection with Plaintiff's employment as an account executive in Defendants' Vestal, New York office. See Dkt. No. 1. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Dkt. No. 35.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff began employment with Defendants on September 10, 2001 as an account executive in Defendants' Vestal, New York office. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff's position involved selling Defendants' "Business Class" services to businesses in the Binghamton, New York area. Id. at ¶ 9. As an account executive, Plaintiff earned a base salary and could earn sales commissions. Id. at ¶ 10. Defendants required its account executives, including Plaintiff, to meet monthly sales quotas. Id.

At all times relevant to Plaintiff's claims, Defendants maintained policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination and harassment based on gender. See id. at ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 2–3. Defendants also maintained a Standards of Business Conduct policy that prohibited harassment and sexual harassment and instructed employees to report instances of possible discrimination or harassment to Defendants' human resources, legal, or compliance offices. See Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 5–14. In addition, Defendants had an Open Door Process through which employees could report concerns to their local management or local human resources department or to Defendants' Corporate Employee Relations Department ("Employee Relations") in Charlotte, North Carolina. See Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 30–32. Plaintiff was trained on and acknowledged receipt of these policies. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 7.

In or about July 2009, shortly after Plaintiff returned from maternity leave, Plaintiff complained to human resources that her manager, Paul Noyd, had said that taking maternity leave was like taking a vacation, in reference to Plaintiff's needing to meet her sales quotas. See id. at ¶ 16; Dkt. No. 30–5 at 23. In response to Plaintiff's complaint, Barbara Petitto, Defendants' director of human resources in Syracuse, New York, counseled Mr. Noyd that his comment was inappropriate. Dkt. No. 30–7 at 49–50; Dkt. No. 30–9 at 14–16.¹

Plaintiff also alleges that shortly after this incident, she attended a meeting at which another account executive, Dana Thurston, made an inappropriate comment to her in front of Mr. Noyd. See Dkt. No. 30–5 at 41. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Thurston commented, "[y]ou look nice today" and turned to Tony DiPietro, the vice president of Defendants' Business Class, and said, "Go ahead, Tony. Take a look. Take a look at Aimee." Id. Plaintiff further alleges that when she spoke to Mr. Noyd about the inappropriateness of Mr. Thurston's comment following the meeting, Mr. Noyd taunted Plaintiff about reporting the comment to human resources and refused to take Plaintiff to human resources to make a report. See id. at 41–42. Plaintiff contends that she then reported Mr. Thurston's comments and Mr. Noyd's response to Ms. Petitto. See id. at 42. Ms. Petitto and Mr. Noyd do not recall Plaintiff complaining about Mr. Thurston's comments to them. See Dkt. No. 30–7 at 29; Dkt. No. 30–9 at 90.

Plaintiff's monthly sales quota for July 2009 was $4,500. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 12. Defendants required Plaintiff to meet only fifty percent of her monthly sales quota that month. Id. at ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 34. Plaintiff actually sold $294 worth of services in July 2009. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 34. Defendants required Plaintiff to meet sixty-five percent of her monthly sales quotas in August, September, and October 2009, seventy-five percent of her monthly sales quota in November 2009, and eighty percent of her monthly sales quota in December 2009. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 34. Plaintiff did not meet her reduced monthly sales quotas in August, September, or October 2009. Dkt. No. 30–2 at 34. On November 2, 2009, Mr. Noyd informed Plaintiff in writing that if Plaintiff did not meet her reduced monthly sales quota for the month of November 2009, Plaintiff would progress to the termination stage of Defendants' progressive employee discipline procedure. Id.²

Around April 30, 2010, Defendants reassigned Plaintiff to report to another manager, Cory Karanik. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 19. Mr. Karanik worked out of Defendants' Syracuse, New York office. Id. at ¶ 20. Mr. Karanik was trained on Defendants' anti-harassment, antidiscrimination, and Open Door policies. Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff and Mr. Karanik had face-to-face contact approximately ten times in an eleven-month period. Id. at ¶ 21. According to Plaintiff, on these occasions, Mr. Karanik made inappropriate comments regarding her appearance and body. See id. at ¶ 22; Dkt. No. 30–5 at 46. In addition, on June 11, 2010, after an in-person meeting with Plaintiff, Mr. Karanik sent Plaintiff a text message that read "Your [sic ] very distracting." Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 23. Plaintiff responded with a text message that read "Sorry" and included a colon and a parenthesis to indicate a smiley face. Id. at ¶ 24. Mr. Karanik sent Plaintiff an additional text message that read "I'll do my best to behave." Id. at ¶ 25.

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff notified Employee Relations of Mr. Karanik's comments and text messages from 2010. See id. at ¶ 27; Dkt. No. 30–2 at 36. Plaintiff also informed Employee Relations that Mr. Karanik had attempted to kiss Plaintiff at a café following a funeral for a colleague's family that Plaintiff and Mr. Karanik attended together. Dkt. No. 30–2 at 36. Defendants immediately suspended Mr. Karanik pending investigation of Plaintiff's complaint. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 31. After investigation, Ms. Petitto and Employee Relations determined that Mr. Karanik had encouraged Plaintiff not to report his behavior to human resources. See Dkt. No. 30–8 at 50. Defendants therefore terminated Mr. Karanik on June 16, 2011 for violating their Open Door policy. See id. at 50–51; Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 32.

Plaintiff went on leave from the time she reported Mr. Karanik in May 2011 until approximately December 2011. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 33. When Plaintiff returned to work, Defendants assigned her to report to Michael Stanton, Director of Sales in Defendants' Syracuse office. See id. at ¶ 35; Dkt. No. 30–8 at 54–57. Plaintiff went on maternity leave from approximately March 7, 2012 to May 18, 2012. See Dkt. No. 30–1 at ¶¶ 27–28. When she returned from maternity leave, Defendants afforded Plaintiff a "ramp up" period of reduced sales quotas. See Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 36. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff to meet twenty-five percent of her sales quotas for June, July, and August 2012, fifty percent of her sales quota for September 2012, and seventy-five percent of her sales quota for October 2012. Id.

Upon her return, Plaintiff complained to Ms. Petitto about reporting to Mr. Stanton, which Plaintiff viewed as a disadvantage because she did not feel like part of the Vestal sales team and missed the opportunity to participate in team meetings by having to report to a manager remotely. See Dkt. No. 30–5 at 70–71. Ms. Petitto thereafter reassigned Plaintiff to report to Mr. Noyd at Plaintiff's request. See id. at 71. Plaintiff continued to fail to meet her sales quotas after she was reassigned to Mr. Noyd. See id. at 75.

Around this time, Plaintiff also expressed to Ms. Petitto that she was not happy conducting outside sales and face-to-face visits to potential customers. See Dkt. No. 30–8 at 60. Plaintiff told Ms. Petitto that part of her concern with respect to "[b]eing out on the streets" was that she feared Mr. Karanik was following her or driving by her house. See id. at 60–61; Dkt. No. 30–5 at 58–59. Ms. Petitto directed Plaintiff to other job openings with Defendants, including inside sales opportunities in Defendants' Syracuse office. See Dkt. No. 30–5 at 67. Plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for media sales and hospital sales positions with Defendants. See id. at 74. In or about February 2013, Plaintiff transferred to a customer service representative position in Defendants' Vestal call center. Dkt. No. 30–10 at ¶ 46. Plaintiff's base salary, health benefits, and reduced cable services remained the same as in her prior account executive position. Id. at ¶ 47.³

From April 18, 2013 through October 24, 2013, Plaintiff progressed through the four stages of Defendants' corrective action process for employee discipline based on Plaintiff's excessive tardiness and absenteeism, including documented counseling on April 18, 2013, a written warning on May 10, 2013, a final written warning on July 10, 2013, and a second final written warning on October 24, 2013. Id. at ¶ 48. On November 5, 2013, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of her continued pattern of attendance violations. Id. at ¶ 50.

On June 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("Division of Human Rights"), which alleged gender discrimination and hostile work environment charges against Defendants and Mr. Karanik. Id. at ¶ 37. On July 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second complaint with the Division of Human Rights, alleging that Defendants subjected her to retaliation for filing her initial complaint by...