Clayton v. Dreamstyle Remodeling of Colo., LLC

1

AMANDA CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. DREAMSTYLE REMODELING OF COLORADO, LLC, DREAMSTYLE REMODELING, INC., and PAUL WATKINS, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-02096-KLM

United States District Court, D. Colorado

March 28, 2022

ORDER

Kristen L. Mix, United States Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is “Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.” Motion [#37].^[1]Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the Motion, and Defendants have replied. Response [#41]; Reply [#45]. After considering the pleadings, the evidence submitted, and the applicable law, the Motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Amanda Clayton [“Clayton, ” or “Plaintiff”] brings this lawsuit against her former joint employers-Defendants Dreamstyle Remodeling of Colorado, LLC and Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc. [collectively “Dreamstyle, ” or “Defendants”]-alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended [“Title VII”], 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq., and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act [“CADA”], Colo. Rev Stat. §§ 24-34-402 et. seq. Compl. [#1]; Am. Compl. [#15].

A. Material Facts Pertinent to the Resolution of the Motion for Summary Judgment

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Dreamstyle is a full-service home-remodeling company that operates throughout the Western United States. MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 2. Clayton, who is female, worked for Dreamstyle, as a Sales Representative at the company's Denver/Englewood branch, for a period of five and a half months, from March 19, 2019, until September 4, 2019. Watkins Decl. [#37-5] ¶ 2; Carroll Decl. [#37-13] ¶ 3 & Clayton Dep. [#37-20] at 78.

At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Paul Watkins, who is male, served as the General Manager of the Denver/Englewood branch. Watkins Decl. [#37-5] ¶ 3. In that role, Watkins controlled Clayton's appointments and approved her leave requests. Wilhelmi Aff. [#41-1] ¶ 3 & Clayton Dep. [#41-2] at 72. Plaintiff's direct supervisor, upon hire, was Sarah Pearse. Watkins Decl. [#37-5] ¶ 3. Beginning around May or June of 2019, and throughout the remainder of her employment with Dreamstyle, Clayton's direct supervisor was Alexandrea Vinet. Id.

Dreamstyle's Harassment-Free Workplace Policy instructs employees to report alleged harassment as soon as possible, by either: (1) telling the alleged harasser (if the reporting employee is able to do so without conflict or danger); (2) reporting the incident to a direct supervisor, the company's human resources department, the company's president, or the company's legal counsel; or (3) if the employee prefers, anonymously and confidentially reporting the alleged harassment via a 24/7/365 Safe Hotline. Carroll Decl. [#37-13] ¶ 9 & Dep. Ex. 2 [#37-14]; Clayton Dep. [#37-20] at 69. Dreamstyle's Employee Handbook reiterates its Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, as well as the company's Non-Discrimination Policy, complaint procedures, Equal Employment Policy, Grievance Policy (specifically addressing workplace harassment and supervisor or coworker behavior), and how to report suggestions or concerns. MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 3 & Dep. Ex. 43 [#37-4]. During her employment with Dreamstyle, Plaintiff read, understood, and agreed to the company's workplace policies. Clayton Dep. [#37-20] at 69.

Clayton alleges that, almost immediately after she began working for Dreamstyle, she was subjected to “inappropriate, ” “offensive, ” and “unwelcome” sexual conduct by Watkins. Am. Compl. [#15] ¶¶ 2, 10, 22, 25, 33, 38. In either March or April 2019, around the time of a workplace training session, Watkins showed four female trainees, including Clayton, an array of photographs he had taken in his part-time profession as a professional photographer. Carroll Decl. [#37-13] ¶ 9 & Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-15] at 4; Clayton Dep. [#37-20] at 97; MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 15; Watkins Decl. [#37-5] ¶ 5 & Dep. Ex. 5 [#37-8]; Watkins Decl. [#37-5] ¶ 7 & Dep. Ex. 1 [#37-6]. Many of the photographs depicted scantily-clad young woman. Watkins Decl. Dep. Ex. 1 [#37-6]; Clayton Dep. [#41-2] at 97-109; Wilhelmi Aff. [#41-1] ¶ 4 & Vinet Dep. [#41-3] at 36-43; Wilhelmi Aff. [#41-1] ¶ 8 & Ontiveros Dep. [#41-5] at 16-18. Watkins' actions in displaying the photographs made Clayton feel uncomfortable. Clayton Dep. [#41-2] at 99 (“I was, you know, in a very uncomfortable place emotionally[.]”), 107 (“[I]t was a very jarring experience[.]”). Around that same time, Clayton observed a female coworker, who conversed with Watkins, frequently dressed in inappropriate workplace attire.^[2] Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-15] at 4; Watkins Decl. Dep. Ex. 5 [#37-8]; Wilhelmi Aff. [#41-1] ¶ 6 & August 29th Recording [conventionally filed] at 17:57-18:45. Those incidents also apparently made Plaintiff feel ill at ease. Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-15] at 4.

Around May 8, 2019, Watkins allegedly made a remark to Clayton regarding a mistake that she had made on a work assignment, although there is a factual dispute as to whether this happened and, if so, what was said.^[3] MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 17; Watkins Decl. Dep. Ex. 5 [#37-8]; Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-14] at 4; August 29th Recording [conventionally filed] at 18:57-19:13. A few days later, around Saturday, May 11, 2019, in the late evening, Watkins called Clayton at her home, without forewarning, asking for a restaurant recommendation. MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 18; Watkins Decl. Dep. Ex. 5 [#37-8]; Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-14] at 4; August 29th Recording [conventionally filed] at 21:30-22:53. The phone call is alleged to have lasted for approximately ninety minutes. Am. Compl. [#15] at 7 ¶ 32. Clayton subsequently complained to her employer that the conversation made her uncomfortable, due to the fact that Watkins was asking probing questions about her personal life, and because she felt that she could not hang up the phone. Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-14] at 4. Plaintiff now alleges that, after the phone call incident, Watkins began to treat her “unfavorably.” Am. Compl. [#15] at 8 ¶ 35.

A few weeks later, during a sales meeting, Watkins told Clayton that she should try to get her husband, who was reportedly a “sales guru, ” to teach her how to be a better salesperson. MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 19; Watkins Decl. Dep. Ex. 5 [#37-8]; Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-14] at 4. The parties dispute the specific words that Watkins used, ^[4]though it is clear from the record that the comment was made in front of the entire Denver/Englewood branch sales team. Id.; Vinet Dep. [#41-3] at 66-67; Ontiveros Dep. [#41-5] at 39-40, 80. Clayton alleges that she felt “humiliated and demeaned” by this incident. Am. Compl. [#15] at 9 ¶ 38.

On August 21, 2019, at another weekly sales meeting attended by Clayton, Watkins, unprompted, told the sales team about a female customer who had accused him of misconduct relating to a hug, referring to the customer as “crazy.” MacGillivray Decl. [#37-1] ¶ 20; Watkins Decl. Dep. Ex. 5 [#37-8]; Carroll Decl. Dep. Ex. 4 [#37-14] at 4. Watkins also remarked about a gift basket that he had given to another female customer. Id. That same week, Watkins spoke with Clayton's then direct supervisor, Vinet, regarding perceived deficiencies in Clayton's job performance. Carroll Decl. [#37-13] ¶ 4 & Vinet Dep. [#37-21] at 169-74. During that conversation, Watkins told Vinet that he was “done with” Clayton, though it is unclear from the record whether Watkins meant that he intended to terminate her employment.^[5] Id. Vinet, in response, asked Watkins for “one more month” to work with Clayton.^[6] Vinet Dep. [#37-21] at 174. Watkins agreed. Id.

On Saturday, August, 24, 2019, Vinet met with Clayton to discuss Clayton's job performance. Vinet Dep. [#37-21] at 174-75. The two women brainstormed ways that Clayton could go about improving her sales numbers. Id. at 175-78. Vinet encouraged Clayton to take time off from work to “recoup.” Id.

That Monday, August 26, 2019, at 12:43 p.m., Clayton sent an email to Dreamstyle's President, Larry Chavez, Sr., in which she lodged a formal complaint regarding Watkins' workplace behavior. The email read, in relevant part, as follows:

I am writing to express my deep and troubling concerns with the environment and culture within the Denver office. I have struggled with how and if I should voice my experience and concerns, but I feel that it is absolutely the right thing to do to make the company aware. I will try to be as clear as possible and go chronologically.

* * * I was hired in March 2019 and trained for several weeks in the Denver office along with three other female employees. Training consisted of direct training with either Sarah Pearce (former Sales Manager) or Paul Watkins.

The training times with [Watkins] were at times very uncomfortable. Instead of training us for the actual job or sales training, we would spend hours and days in [Watkins'] office. He would show us provocative photos from his time as a “photographer.” Several times he would allude to much more racy photos of a sexual nature. This felt alarming and uncomfortable. During training he also had a former female admin employee sit crossed legged on top of his desk. This same female employee was also frequently grossly and inappropriately dressed for a business office.

* * *

After selling an appointment on [May 8, 2019], I reached out to [Watkins] to find out how to enter the Sale[.] . . . When I didn't hear back from [Watkins], I completed the paperwork the best I knew how. [Watkins'] response was “Why did you do that? That screws our numbers up. I am going to have to spank your butt.”

On Saturday May 12, 2019, I received a phone call late at night from [Watkins]. His reasoning for the call was for a

...