Allard v. Citizens Bank

608 F.Supp.2d 160

Jean C. ALLARD, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS BANK and Dennis Wyatt, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 07-12001-JLT.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 9, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Carla J. Eaton, Lynn A. Kappelman, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

Anne Glennon, Wendy A. Kaplan, Law Office of Wendy A. Kaplan, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM

TAURO, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jean C. Allard alleges that Defendant Dennis Wyatt ("Mr. Wyatt") subjected her to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation while they were employed by Citizens Bank ("Citizens"). Plaintiff brings state and federal claims for violation of (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and (2) the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. Citizens brings a counterclaim for money had and received. Presently at issue is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") on all claims. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is ALLOWED.

II. Background

From 1998 until 2006, Plaintiff worked in various capacities for Citizens, most recently as Customer Development Program Coordinator and Assistant Vice President in the Business Banking Group of its Norwood, Massachusetts office ("the Norwood office"). Plaintiffs job involved sending written communications that the Business Banking Group distributed throughout New England for contest winners and performance-award winners.

On May 15, 2006, Mr. Wyatt began working in the Norwood office as Vice President, Director of Sales Strategy and Support for New England Business Banking, making him Plaintiffs direct supervisor. Mr. Wyatt was two levels of management beneath Executive Vice President Hal Tovin and one level beneath Senior Vice President Anthony Nuzzo. In the summer of 2006, Mr. Tovin began drafting plans to consolidate the communications divisions of the three departments under his control, including Business Banking, into one group. When two vacancies arose in Business Banking early in Mr. Wyatt's tenure, Mr. Nuzzo instructed him not to fill the vacancies due to the departmental overhaul. As a result of this ongoing restructuring, Citizens had transferred a significant portion of Plaintiff's job responsibilities to its New England Communications Group by September 2006.

Soon after Mr. Wyatt's arrival, a conflict developed between Mr. Wyatt and Plaintiff, beginning in June 2006. The subject of the initial conflict was Mr. Wyatt's decision to revoke permission for Plaintiff to work in Citizens' Rhode Island office one day each week. On July 11, 2006, Plaintiff complained to Citizens' Human Resources Department about Mr. Wyatt, specifically targeting his abrupt and abrasive demeanor. On August 3, 2006, Plaintiff met with Bruce Nichols and Kathy Schoeffler of Human Resources, reiterating her complaints about Mr. Wyatt's management style and also mentioning that Mr. Wyatt "constantly `adjusts' [himself] in meetings and [that she] finds it disgusting."¹ Plaintiff again summarized these complaints in an email to Mr. Nichols and Ms. Schoeffler on September 19, 2006.

On October 4, 2006, Mr. Wyatt and Mr. Nichols presented to Mr. Nuzzo their own plan to reorganize the departments, which retained Plaintiffs position in the new system. Mr. Nuzzo, however, advised them to halt their plans in light of Mr. Tovin's anticipated restructuring, which would override their design. Later that day, Mr. Wyatt and Mr. Nichols met with members of the Sales Strategy and Support team individually to discuss job performance and the restructuring. During the meeting with Plaintiff, Mr. Wyatt pointed out deficiencies in Plaintiffs work but ultimately reassured her that Citizens was not planning to eliminate her position.

The following day, on October 5, 2006, Mr. Tovin, Mr. Nuzzo, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Nichols, and Ms. Schoeffler all met in Mr. Tovin's office for a presentation of his reorganization plan. At the meeting, Mr. Tovin announced that his plan required eliminating Plaintiffs position. Defendants assert that, immediately following this disclosure, Ms. Schoeffler and Mr. Nuzzo informed Mr. Tovin of Plaintiffs complaints about Mr. Wyatt, but Mr. Tovin remained steadfast in his decision. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Tovin had knowledge of Plaintiffs complaints before deciding to eliminate her position.

On October 16, 2006, Citizens informed Plaintiff of her termination, effective October 26, 2006. Citizens offered Plaintiff a severance agreement, which would provide Plaintiff with her salary of $65,560.22 annualized for six months and other benefits in exchange for a release of all her claims. Plaintiff never signed the agreement, but, due to an internal miscommunication, Citizens sent Plaintiff payments totaling $23,954.69 before noticing the mistake. Plaintiff cashed the checks and refused to repay Citizens.

III. Discussion

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A court may grant summary judgment when the moving party has shown "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."² The opposing party has the burden of production to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."³ The court must examine the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve any reasonable inference in that party's favor.⁴ "Neither party may rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated denials, but must identify specific facts derived from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits to demonstrate either the existence or absence of an issue of fact."⁵

B. Sex Discrimination

Plaintiff first alleges that Defendants subjected her to disparate treatment because of her gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. Discovery has revealed, however, that Plaintiffs sole claim of favoritism in her numerous reports to Human Resources arose with respect to another female employee.⁶ In fact, seven out of the eight individuals under Mr. Wyatt's supervision were women.⁷ Regardless, Plaintiff did not pursue this claim in her Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and, therefore, Defendants' Motion is ALLOWED WITHOUT OPPOSITION as to Plaintiffs sex-discrimination claim.

C. Hostile Work Environment

Both federal law and state law recognize sex-discrimination claims when an employee must endure a hostile work environment as a result of sexual harassment by coworkers.⁸ Sexual harassment occurs when "[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature ... [have] the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."⁹ The alleged conduct must be "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment."¹⁰ This standard contains both a subjective and an objective component. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that she actually perceived the environment to be hostile or abusive as a result of the defendant's conduct.¹¹ Second, the plaintiff must show that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would perceive the environment to be hostile or abusive.¹² In making this determination, courts must consider "the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance," but "no single factor is required."¹³ This analysis "necessarily entail[s] a fact-specific assessment of all the attendant circumstances."¹⁴

Here, Plaintiff's complaints to Human Resources initially centered on professional disagreements with her managers. Prior to Mr. Wyatt's arrival at Citizens, Plaintiff complained to Human Resources about the "hostile working environment" created by a disagreement with another supervisor over a recent performance evaluation.¹⁵ Shortly after Mr. Wyatt's arrival, when Mr. Wyatt requested that Plaintiff work from Monday through Friday in the Norwood office, Plaintiff criticized Mr. Wyatt's "tendency to be abrupt and rude" in a report to Human Resources.¹⁶ Then, while reiterating her concerns about Mr. Wyatt's management style to Human Resources in August 2006, Plaintiff also remarked that Mr. Wyatt "adjusts" himself while in department meetings and that she found it offensive.¹⁷ Plaintiffs sexual harassment claim rests entirely on the latter events.

In a conspicuous departure from the language used in her reports to Human Resources, Plaintiff adopts the term "fondling" in the Complaint to describe Mr. Wyatt's alleged behavior.¹⁸ Plaintiff also refers to "Wyatt's habitual masturbation in her presence[ ] and in the presence of other employees."¹⁹ The record, however, offers no support for this significant change in terminology. In her communications with Human Resources, Plaintiff repeatedly used the term "adjusting" to describe Mr. Wyatt's behavior, a complaint that cropped up in August amidst a long list of criticisms concerning Mr. Wyatt's abrasive management style.²⁰ Plaintiff never described the act as sexual in nature or involving any element of self-gratification.²¹ She did not indicate to Human Resources that she perceived the act to be a sexual proposal or even that Mr. Wyatt was conscious of this behavior. Additionally, Plaintiff never complained that Mr. Wyatt made any explicit or implicit sexual comments towards her, which might have offered some evidence of harassment. At her deposition, Plaintiff did not refute, modify, or add to her earlier characterizations of Mr. Wyatt's conduct in her reports to Human Resources.²² In fact, Plaintiff...