Orlando v. Kraft Heinz Co.

1

JUSTIN ORLANDO, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 3:22-CV-01636 (JCH)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

September 27, 2024

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NOS. 106 & 111) AND MOTIONS TO SEAL (DOC. NOS. 107 &amp 115)

Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Justin Orlando (“Mr. Orlando”) brings this action against his former employer, the Kraft Heinz Company (“Kraft Heinz” or “the Company”) alleging retaliation in violation of section 31-51q of the Connecticut General Statutes. See First Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) (Doc. No. 17). Before the court are the parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment. See Kraft Heinz's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Summ. J. Mot.”) (Doc. No. 106); Orlando's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Summ. J. Mot.”) (Doc. No. 111). In addition, both parties have filed related Motions to Seal. See Kraft Heinz's Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 107); Orlando's Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 115). Kraft Heinz's Motion for Summary Judgment seeks to close the case; Mr. Orlando's Motion for Summary Judgment is partial, i.e., it would only resolve his claim to the extent it stands on his 2022 speech.

For the reasons stated below, the court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Orlando's Motion for Summary Judgment, Kraft Heinz's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Kraft Heinz's Motion to Seal; and grants Mr. Orlando's Motion to Seal.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background^[1]

Mr. Orlando, an at-will employee of Kraft Heinz since March 2020, was promoted to Associate Director of the Metro Area in 2022. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶¶ 7, 9. Upon being promoted, he reported to the Customer Vice President of Regional Grocery East, Allison Phillips, who in turn reported to the Area Vice President, Amy Bosek (“Ms. Bosek”). Id. at ¶ 9. As an Associate Director, Mr. Orlando was: (1) “responsible for maintaining and growing approximately $350 million in sales between Kraft Heinz and its business partners”, id. at ¶ 10, and (2) “leading a [racially diverse] team of approximately seven individuals.” Id. at ¶ 11.

In 2021, Mr. Orlando campaigned for a seat on the Board of Education of Monroe, Connecticut. See Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 1; Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 16.

During this time, several news outlets reported that Mr. Orlando had worn “blackface” as part of a 2018 Halloween costume.^[2] Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 16. Mr. Orlando issued a statement in response. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 17; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 1. In the statement, which was published by the local news, Mr. Orlando claimed that he did not view the costume as implicating “a racial decision”, see Def.'s Ex. 11, Orlando's Statement Attachment to the Article from the Monroe Sun (“Orlando's Public Statement”) (Doc. No. 106-11) at 5, and instead, thought the costume “demonstrat[ed] respect for” a television character, Ricardo Tubbs.^[3] See id.

On or about August 30, 2022, Kraft Heinz conducted a “New Leadership Assimilation Workshop for [Mr. Orlando]”; it was led by Julia Plecque (“Ms. Plecque”), Human Resources Business Partner of Sales, and Kathleen Frost (“Ms. Frost”), Senior Human Resources Analyst of Sales. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶¶ 12-13; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 1. Kraft Heinz commonly conducts such workshops for managers when they “take on new teams.” Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 13. During the workshop, Mr. Orlando shared that he was a member of the Board of Education of Monroe, Connecticut.

Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 14; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 1. Curious as to Mr. Orlando's background, Ms. Frost searched his name on the internet and discovered news articles reporting that Mr. Orlando had worn “blackface” as part of a Halloween costume. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 15; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 1.

Ms. Plecque reported Ms. Frost's findings to Kraft Heinz's Ethics and Compliance Department, which, consistent with its practice, assigned Associate General Counsel William Novak (“Mr. Novak”) to investigate.^[4] Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶¶ 18-19; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 3. Mr. Novak's responsibilities “include assessing risk to Kraft Heinz's customers, employees, and reputation based on violations of [the Company's] Code of Conduct and policies.” Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 20.

On September 15, 2022, Mr. Novak interviewed Mr. Orlando via videoconference and Ms. Plecque attended the meeting to take notes. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 22; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 3. Mr. Novak asked Mr. Orlando about the costume. See Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 24; Def.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 3.^[5] During the interview, Mr. Orlando admitted to wearing the costume at issue and claimed that the news articles related to the incident were a part of a smear campaign intended to thwart his bid for local office.

Def.'s Ex. 19, Plecque Notes at 1; see Pl.'s 56(a)(2) at ¶ 23. Mr. Orlando also claimed during the interview that, while he darkened his complexion, he lacked the malintent supposedly required to wear blackface. See Def.'s Ex. 19, Plecque Notes at 2; Pl.'s 56(a)(2) at ¶ 34. He said further that, at the time, it had not occurred to him that his conduct had racial or negative undertones, Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶ 26, but said he would not wear the costume again because of, inter alia, the negative impact the news coverage had on him and his family. Id. at ¶ 28.^[6]

During this interview, Mr. Novak asked Mr. Orlando how he would explain his decision to wear the Halloween costume to an employee. See id. at ¶ 29.^[7] Mr. Orlando replied that he would explain his “position” on the matter and expected his employee would understand that Mr. Orlando was not racist, having worked with him before. See id; Mr. Novak also asked Mr. Orlando whether he thought the costume reflected poorly on the company because Mr. Orlando had used his LinkedIn photo, which tied Mr. Orlando to Kraft Heinz, in his election campaign. Id. at ¶ 32. Mr. Orlando responded that he did not think Kraft Heinz was negatively implicated because, among other reasons, if people got to know him, they would understand who he really is. Id. Mr. Novak observed that Mr. Orlando had completed Kraft Heinz's “dignity and respect” training shortly before Mr. Orlando issued his statement to the press, in response Mr. Novak recorded Mr. Orlando as saying, “when we look at the training, I do nothing but live up to Kraft Heinz's values.” Id. at ¶ 33; Def.'s Ex. 19, Plecque Notes at 2.

Following the interview, Mr. Novak was concerned about the potential impact of Mr. Orlando's conduct on Kraft Heinz's employees, customers, and reputation. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) at ¶ 35. He and Ms. Plecque were troubled that, in their view, Mr. Orlando did not understand how his actions might imperil the company's relationships with these constituents. See id. at ¶¶ 36-38. Instead, Mr. Novak thought that Mr. Orlando was only concerned about how the costume, and subsequent criticism, impacted himself and his family.^[8] Id. at ¶ 37.

On September 20, 2022, Mr. Novak met with Mr. Orlando once more. Id. at 45. The meeting came about after Mr. Orlando spoke with Ms. Bosek about the September 15 interview, telling her that it did not go well. Id. at ¶ 39. Ms. Bosek encouraged Mr. Orlando to schedule a follow-up meeting with Mr. Novak to share anything else Mr. Orlando wished to say regarding the investigation, which Mr. Orlando did. Id. at ¶¶ 39, 44. During the meeting with Mr. Novak, Mr. Orlando reiterated that he did not intend to offend anyone by wearing the costume and that he felt he was living up to the Kraft Heinz values. See id. at ¶¶ 46-47.

At the close of his investigation, Mr. Novak concluded that Mr. Orlando's continued employment risked the company's relationship with its employees, and customers, and could tarnish the company's reputation.^[9] Id. at ¶ 54. Mr. Novak based this conclusion on Mr. Orlando's failure to grasp the negative impact that his costume might have on others.^[10] See id. at ¶¶ 52-53. Mr. Novak shared his findings with Ms. Bosek. Id. at ¶ 55.

Ms. Bosek was made aware of certain information that surfaced during Mr. Novak's investigation.^[11] See Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶¶ 51,55. Mr. Orlando explained that he attended a Halloween party in 2018 dressed as the television character, Ricardo Tubbs. Pl.'s 56(a)(1) Stmt at ¶ 4. As part of this costume, Mr. Orlando wore skin- darkening makeup. See id. at ¶ 5, 9. Mr. Orlando represented that he did not wear the costume intending to malign another race or ethnicity and that he would not wear the costume again because of the negative impact doing so had on his family. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7; Pl.'s 56(a)(2) Stmt at ¶¶ 52-53, 55. Mr. Orlando maintained that he did not wear “blackface” because he lacked malintent in wearing the costume. Pl.'s 56(a)(1) Stmt at ¶ 9. More generally, Mr. Orlando asserted that he is not racist. Id. at ¶ 8. During the interview, Mr. Orlando explained that media outlets reported about his 2018 costume in connection with his run for a seat on the local school board. Id. at ¶ 6.

Ms Bosek sent Ms. Plecque a text message seeking advice about how to handle the situation. Pl.'s 56(a)(2) at ¶ 41; Pl.'s Ex. 19, Def.'s Ex. 22, Text Conversation Between Bosek and Plecque (“Bosek & Plecque Texts”) (Doc. No. 106-22) at 1. The parties offer differing characterizations of the text message exchange.^[12] The record reveals, however, that Ms. Bosek asked Ms. Plecque whether it would be appropriate to “put [Mr. Orlando] through a [diversity and inclusion] program.” Pl.'s Ex. 19, Def.'s Ex. 22, Bosek & Plecque Texts at 1. Ms. Plecque responded that Mr. Orlando had taken the “dignity and respect training less than a month before he made comments to the media” and that “it took [Mr. Novak] making clear [Mr. Orlando's] job...