Watt v. Unifirst Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Cum-08-368 |
| Parties | Linda WATT v. UNIFIRST CORPORATION. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Guy D. Loranger (orally), Nichols, Webb & Loranger, PA, Saco, for Linda Watt.
Adam S. Taylor, Esq. (orally), Kim Anderson True, Esq., Taylor, McCormack & Frame, LLC, Portland, for UniFirst Corporation.
John P. Gause, Esq., Commission Counsel, Maine Human Rights Commission, Augusta, for amicus curiae Maine Human Rights Commission.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
[¶ 1] Linda Watt appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) in favor of her former employer UniFirst Corporation on Watt's complaint alleging violations of the Maine Human Rights Act. Watt contends that summary judgment was inappropriate because triable issues of fact exist as to (1) whether UniFirst implemented immediate and appropriate corrective action in response to Watt's complaints of sexual harassment, and (2) whether UniFirst's alleged non-discriminatory reason for her termination was pretextual. We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
[¶ 2] In reviewing an appeal from a summary judgment, we view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was entered." Reliance Nat'l Indem. v. Knowles Indus. Servs., Corp., 2005 ME 29, ¶ 7, 868 A.2d 220, 224. With this standard in mind, the record supports the following facts.
[¶ 3] Linda Watt began working at UniFirst, a supplier of workplace uniforms, textiles, and linens, in July 2004, as part of a crew responsible for filling orders. At the beginning of her employment, Watt received training on the company's policies concerning sexual and other forms of harassment, and was told to promptly report any incidents of harassment to a supervisor or manager. UniFirst's written policy states that "every report of harassment will be investigated thoroughly and promptly," and that if an employee is dissatisfied with the response to such a report, the employee should contact the Corporate Employee Relations Manager.
[¶ 4] Beginning in March 2005, Watt agreed to prepare lunches for a new co-worker, John Hughes, in exchange for a weekly fee of $25. The arrangement was short-lived. Watt stopped providing the lunches sometime in April due to complaints from Hughes, and Hughes grew increasingly hostile toward Watt.
[¶ 5] Watt first complained to UniFirst of Hughes's behavior sometime prior to May 16, 2005. Specifically, Watt told her supervisor, Mark Oliver, that Hughes had been:
calling [her] black bitches, ... saying nasty things, derogatory stuff. Putting things in [her] way.... If [she] moved it, he'd call out [her] name and push it hard, say nasty words, trying to hit [her] with the hamper; coming back where [she] worked and ... saying rude and lewd stuff. If [she said] "excuse me," he [would call her] a bitch and say Things like that.
UniFirst claims that in response to Watt's complaint, Oliver moved Hughes to a different part of the production floor.
[¶ 6] On another occasion prior to May 16, 2005, an incident occurred while Watt was on the loading dock where Oliver was also present. Hughes yelled at Watt to Hughes then approached Watt with "balled fists." Oliver responded by telling Watt to go back inside the plant.
[¶ 7] Later that day, Watt complained to Oliver about another incident that had occurred after the altercation on the dock. Specifically, Hughes had come into her work area and "blocked her as he stood with his arms folded and his legs spread apart. [Hughes then told her], `my balls don't smell through the pants.'"
[¶ 8] In response, Oliver held a meeting between Hughes, Watt, and some other co-workers. Oliver asked that the bickering and fighting among employees come to an end. At the end of the meeting, Hughes wanted to apologize to Watt.
[¶ 9] About a week later, Watt complained to Dan Begin, another supervisor, that Hughes had come into the break room and kissed her on the cheek. Watt told Begin of Hughes's harassing conduct, including swearing, hugging, kissing, grabbing Watt around the waist, and his interference with her ability to perform her job. Begin met with Watt and Hughes the next day. They discussed Watt's allegations and, at the end of the meeting, Begin, in effect, told Hughes to mind his own business.
[¶ 10] On May 16, 2005, Watt injured her foot and was driven to the hospital by Benjamin Smith, the Plant Supervisor. She complained to Smith about Hughes's sexual harassment, the company's failure to address it, and her fear of Hughes. Smith later spoke to Hughes, who acknowledged that he had attempted to hug and kiss Watt and had asked her out on a date. On May 19, Hughes was issued a verbal warning and ordered to have no further verbal or physical contact with Watt.
[¶ 11] On May 26, 2005, Hughes was issued a "final warning" for a separate incident due to an altercation with another employee, unrelated to sexual harassment issues.
[¶ 12] Sometime in June 2005, Watt complained to Oliver that Hughes had told several male co-workers in the break room that Watt was a "bitch," though Watt was not present when the statements were made. Robert Thompson, General Manager at UniFirst, later received a letter from Watt's attorney, dated June 21, 2005, stating that Watt continued to be subject to improper conduct from Hughes. Thompson commenced an investigation into the issue and spoke with Watt and other employees.
[¶ 13] After the investigation, Thompson concluded that Hughes "had attempted to have verbal contact with Watt, had stared at her inappropriately, and [that] he had pinched another [female] employee." Hughes was subsequently suspended for three days, and warned not to have any physical or verbal contact with Watt, or to speak to other employees about her. He was told that if the problem was not corrected he would be terminated. Thompson also sent a letter to Watt's attorney informing him of the action taken, that he would be changing Hughes's duties so that Hughes would not be working in the same area as Watt, and that Watt should contact him immediately if any further problems arose with Hughes.
[¶ 14] After the suspension period, Smith met with Hughes when he returned to work and reviewed with him his behaviors and the company's policy on harassment. Hughes was also reminded not to have any contact with Watt, and he was moved to another department away from Watt's area. Watt was told to have an escort with her whenever she went to areas where Hughes worked, to take different breaks from those taken by Hughes, and to have others with her when she went into the break room.1
[¶ 15] Watt asserts that after Hughes's suspension, he continued to stare at her and make whispered comments to her when no one else was around, including calling Watt a "black bitch" and other derogatory terms.
[¶ 16] Watt claims that she encountered Hughes on July 13, 2005, when she came out on the dock looking for a hamper. He called her a "black bitch" and warned that he would "put [her] where [her] mother is," and Watt maintains in her brief that her mother is deceased. Watt admits to having called Hughes a "yellow bitch" in response. When Hughes reported this incident to Smith, Watt recounted to him what Hughes had said, and explained that she made the derogatory comment to Hughes in response to Hughes's threat and because Hughes had used a hamper to block her access to the door. She also told him that Hughes Watt also told Smith that she was upset that the company had only suspended Hughes rather than fire him, and that she was going to sue the company.
[¶ 17] In mid-September 2005, Watt was filling orders when she ran out of hampers and searched the floor for another one. She had taken an empty hamper when Hughes grabbed it from her, surprising Watt. He pulled on it and called Watt names, and she responded in kind. Watt shoved the hamper back at Hughes, who kicked it back at her "really hard." He then began to approach her with his "fists balled up." Watt grabbed a metal trolley2 and struck Hughes on his shoulder. Watt then asserts that Hughes struck her with another trolley, and the two were then separated. Both Hughes and Watt were suspended pending an investigation.
[¶ 18] William Coe, Corporate Director of Human Resources for UniFirst, conducted an investigation, and met with Watt, Hughes, and various witnesses. Watt told Coe about the harassment directed at her by Hughes.
[¶ 19] After Coe's investigation of the incident, UniFirst hired Peter Kraft, an attorney, to prepare a report and obtain sworn statements from those involved. During Kraft's investigation, Watt asserted that she had hit Hughes in self-defense because she was afraid for her safety. In his investigative report, Kraft noted that Watt alleged that incidents of harassment continued to occur throughout the summer. UniFirst claims that this investigation was the first time it had learned that Hughes had "continued to stare at her and make whispering comments" after he had been suspended. Watt denies that this was the first time, and points to the July 13 incident. Upon the completion of Kraft's investigation, both Watt and Hughes were terminated from employment as a result of their September altercation.
[¶ 20] Watt filed her civil complaint against UniFirst in September...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Jones
...exists sufficient to establish a prima facie case for each element of the claim or defense in order to avoid summary judgment. Watt v. Unifirst Corp., 2009 ME 47, ¶ 21, 969 A.2d 897. The evidence proffered by the non-moving party is assessed for sufficiency—not persuasiveness—such that a co......
-
Fuhrmann v. Staples Office Superstore E., Inc.
...97, ¶¶ 24, 28, 926 A.2d 1197. [¶ 30] The Commission is the state agency that administers the MHRA, see5 M.R.S. § 4566 (2011); Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 2009 ME 47, ¶ 26, 969 A.2d 897, and hears complaints alleging WPA violations pursuant to the procedures outlined in the MHRA, see26 M.R.S. § ......
-
Ferrante v. Mas Med. Staffing
...Id. at 4. MAS contends that the Maine Law Court has not adopted the Faragher standard, and instead employs the standard set in Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 2009 ME 47, ¶ 47, 969 A.2d 897, 904, that the employer action taken must be "immediate and appropriate." Id. at 5. Applying that standard, M......
-
Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, 18-1313
...S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) ). A hostile work environment claim under the MHRA is "concurrent with Title VII." Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 969 A.2d 897, 903 (Me. 2009). At issue now are whether the harassment was based upon sex and whether it was sufficiently severe or pervasive. Later, ......