Thomas v. Comcast of Chicago, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11 CV-1209 |
| Parties | DOMINIQUE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST OF CHICAGO, INC.; COMCAST OF ILLINOIS X, LLC; COMCAST CORPORATION; and NELSON SMITH, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dominique Thomas filed a Complaint on February 21, 2011, alleging employment discrimination against her employer, Comcast of Chicago, Inc., and her supervisor, Nelson Smith. She amended her complaint twice thereafter. Now, Defendants Comcast of Chicago, Inc., Comcast of Illinois X, LLC, and Comcast Corporation (collectively, "Comcast") move for summary judgment in their favor. Smith separately filed his own motion for summary judgment. Since Thomas alleges a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, jurisdiction is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, where all parties reside. Specifically, Thomas' Second Amended Complaint alleges: (I) sexual harassment under Title VII against Comcast and under the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA") against Smith and Comcast; (II) retaliation under Title VII and the IHRA against Comcast; (III) assault and battery under Illinois state law against Smith and Comcast; and (IV) intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois state law against Smith and Comcast.
Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the party moving for summary judgment to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue." Rule 56.1(b)(3) then requires the nonmoving party to admit or deny each factual statement proffered by the moving party and to concisely designate any material facts that establish a genuine dispute for trial. See Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005). A litigant's failure to dispute the facts set forth in an opponent's statement in the manner dictated by Local Rule 56.1 results in those facts' being deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) permits additional material facts to be provided by the nonmoving party. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) then allows the moving party to submit a concise reply to these additional facts. Rule 56.1 requires statements of facts to consist of short, numbered paragraphs. To the extent that a response to a statement of material fact provides only extraneous or argumentative information, this will not constitute a proper denial of the fact, and the fact will be admitted. See Graziana v. Village of Oak Park, 401 F. Supp. 2d 918, 937 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Similarly, to the extent that a statement of fact contains a legal conclusion or otherwise unsupported statement, including a fact which relies upon inadmissible hearsay, such a fact is disregarded. Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1997).
The following is taken from the parties' statements of undisputed material facts submitted in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. Thomas was hired by Comcast on December 1,2008; she remains employed by Comcast as a Customer Account Executive ("CAE") in the Customer Retention Department. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 1.) Comcast provides video, cable, high-speed internet, and phone services to customers. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 1.) Comcast operates a call center in Tinley Park, Illinois; there, CAEs, like Thomas, receive calls from customers who are considering discontinuing their service through Comcast and work to maintain the customers' business. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) CAEs in the call center work in a large open room and are assigned desks and cubicles. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 4.) Defendant Nelson Smith was employed by Comcast as a Retention Supervisor in the Customer Retention Department from August 13,2007 until March 2011; the CAEs and supervisors worked in close proximity on the same floor at the Tinley Park call center. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 4, 8.)
In 2009, Thomas was transferred to Smith's team in the call center. (Id. ¶ 10.) Smith greeted workers in the call center with hugs, pats on the back, and fist bumps. (Id. ¶11.) As Thomas' supervisor, Thomas alleges Smith made the following comments to her: (1) "You're sexy"; (2) "I did not know you were that cute"; (3) "You should not wear things like that to work because you look too good"; (4) "You have pretty lips"; (5) "You have nice legs"; (6) "You're [sic] butt looks too juicy"; and (7) "If I was your man, I would tear you up." (Id. ¶ 14.) Smith also told Thomas that "if you and I were in arelationship, it would be perfect." (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 4.) Smith denies making these statements. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 15.)
Thomas further alleges Smith touched her leg while saying, "You have some really thick legs." (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 17.) Thomas claims Smith rubbed her hair on multiple occasions. (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 5.) Smith denies making these comments. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 15, 21.) Thomas also testified that in one instance, while she was on the phone, she had her feet on her desk; Smith approached her desk, picked her legs up, and put her legs on the ground. (Id. ¶ 24.) Smith admits moving her feet off the desk because he thought it was unprofessional of Thomas. (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 39.) Thomas alleges Smith talked to her about Smith's sex life with his wife and discussed his desire to have an affair with a coworker. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 27.)
Thomas also claims that on October 22,2009, while she was on the phone with a customer, Smith approached her, hugged her from behind, and partially kissed her on the mouth. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) Smith denies that he kissed Thomas, but contends that they bumped heads when he greeted Thomas in the morning. (Id. ¶ 36.) After Smith purportedly kissed Thomas, Thomas met with Manager Norma Hopman and told Hopman about the kiss. (Id. ¶ 43.) Thomas was hesitant to complain to Comcast about Smith prior to this instance because Smith was her direct supervisor, and she was nervous. (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 12.) Hopman informed Thomas that Comcast would investigate her allegations; Thomas left work and when she returned, she was assigned to another team with a new supervisor. (Smith's 56.1 (a)(3) Statement ¶¶ 44-46.) Comcast's investigation into Thomas' complaint revealed that Smith engaged in inappropriate conduct and that he violated Comcast's Harassment Policy. (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 24.) Comcast instructed Smith that he was not to have any interactions with Plaintiff unless it was strictly related to work and that he was not to touch or hug any employee. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 48.) Despite this, Smith continued to hug other employees. (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 26.)
After Thomas was moved to a different team, she was given a pay raise and advanced to the next level in her career as a CAE. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 50.) After Thomas' move to another team, she complained to another supervisor that Smith continued to greet her at work and that this made her feel uncomfortable. (Id. ¶ 52.) Upon learning of this, a manager instructed Smith he was not to make any contact with Thomas. (Id. ¶ 53.)
As a result of the alleged sexual harassment, Thomas claims she suffered from, and continues to suffer from, emotional distress. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 50.) Another CAE, Katrina McGee, also reported she was uncomfortable with Smith's hugging her and invading her personal space in December 2010. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 55.) Comcast investigated this complaint and interviewed CAEs that Smith supervised. (Id. ¶ 56.) On December 17, 2010, following this investigation, Comcast suspended Smith and placed him on administrative leave; thereafter, Comcast terminated Smith's employment. (Id. ¶¶ 61-62.)
After Thomas was hired as a CAE in the call center, she attended training regarding Comcast's sexual harassment policy. (Smith's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 2.)Comcast promulgated a Sexual Harassment Policy, a Harassment Policy, an Open Door Policy, and an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, all of which were included in Comcast's Employee Handbook. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 18.) The harassment policies define prohibited conduct and identify channels for reporting violations. (Id. ¶ 19.) Comcast also maintains a toll-free hotline that employees can call to report violations at any time. (Id. ¶ 20.) At the start of their employment, both Smith and Thomas signed acknowledgments, indicating they received and understood the harassment and open door policies employed by Comcast. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 26.)
In Thomas' role as a CAE, she is evaluated through various metrics, including her sales and productivity, which takes into account call duration, sales rates, and call volume. (Comcast's 56.1(a)(3) Statement ¶ 6.) CAEs receive review ratings of "Green," "Yellow," or "Red" - Green indicates acceptable performance; Yellow indicates a need for improvement, and Red means the CAE's performance fell short of expectations. (Id. ¶ 7.) When a CAE fails to meet the performance metrics, a correction active or warning is generated: this warning is provided to the CAE's Retention Supervisor, who can review the contents of the warning with the CAE. (Id. ¶ 8.) The duties of a Retention Supervisor, such as Smith, include overseeing a team of CAEs and providing them with coaching and performance feedback. (Id. ¶ 10.) Retention Supervisors cannot directly fire CAEs but can impact the termination of a CAE. (Id. ¶ 12.) Retention Supervisors prepare their performance evaluations of their CAEs; these evaluations are reviewed by the Managers prior to submitting the evaluations to the CAEs. (Id. ¶ 13.) Theseevaluations are used to determine raises in compensation and promotion potential. (Pl.'s 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement ¶ 35.)
Thomas received a...
To continue reading
Request your trial