Connecticut District Court decision, Goodwine v. DCF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

created a hostile work environment because it did not objectively alter the conditions underwhich Ms. Goodwine worked. See Alfano, 294 F.3d at 373-74. Indeed, the Second Circuitrecently held that an employer's failure to investigate an employee's complaint of discriminationdid not by itself "alter the terms and conditions of [her] employment," and therefore "could notitself have contributed to or constituted a hostile work environment." Fincher v. DepositoryTrust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712, 724 (2d Cir. 2010). As the court explained, theemployer's failure to investigate the employee's complaint merely "preserved the verycircumstances that were the subject of the complaint." Id. In support of its holding, the courtnoted that "in the analogous context of hostile work environment claims based on allegations ofsexual harassment, federal courts . . . appear to have uniformly rejected the notion that a failureadequately to remediate sexual harassment itself constitutes an act that may contribute to ahostile work environment claim." Id. (citation, quotation marks, and alteration omitted).In Ms. Goodwine's case, DCF did investigate Ms. Goodwine's complaint, DCF put Mr.Bendig on administrative leave once it learned of the incident, and DCF disciplined Mr. Bendig.Moreover, as Ms. Goodwine herself admits, following his suspension, Mr. Bendig never againtouched her or made an offensive comment toward her. If anything, DCF's response to Ms.Goodwine's complaint improved "the . . . circumstances that were the subject the complaint."See id. Therefore, DCF's decision to suspend rather than transfer Mr. Bendig did not create "anobjectively hostile or abusive work environment." See Patterson, 375 F.3d at 227.Ms. Goodwine's argument that Ms. Gavey's role as the hearing officer who reviewed herworkplace violence grievances contributed to a hostile work environment is also without merit.Indeed, Ms. Goodwine cites no evidence in support of her claim that "Ms. Gavey undertook [thatrole] to ensure that the decision that she, Mr. Mattera and Dr. Sullivan reached and approved,20
was not overturned." See Mem. in Opp'n [doc. # 33-38] at 33. Nor does she cite any case law insupport of her claim that Ms. Gavey's actions constituted a "gross violation of due process." Seeid. In any case, as noted already, the one grievance that Ms. Goodwine took to the next level ofreview was denied by the Office of Labor Relations in July 2007. There is no evidence that Ms.Goodwine was in any way prejudiced by Ms. Gavey's review of her grievances, let alone thatMs. Gavey's involvement in the grievance review contributed to a "workplace . . . permeatedwith discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult . . . sufficiently severe or pervasive to alterthe conditions of [Ms. Goodwine's] employment and create an abusive working environment."Harris, 510 U.S. at 21.The other experiences that Ms. Goodwine complains of – not receiving responses toemails and having to share the hallways with an unsavory colleague – are the sort of "ordinarytribulations of the workplace" that the Title VII hostile work environment standards are meant to"filter out." Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (citation omitted) (notingthat those "standards . . . . are sufficiently demanding to ensure that Title VII does not become a'general civility code'" (citation omitted)). Ms. Goodwine has not alleged that she was subjectedto "offensive utterance[s]" after Mr. Bendig returned in February 2007, let alone any "physicallythreatening or humiliating" actions. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Finally, Ms. Goodwine'sassertion that she was "treated as a troublemaker," Goodwine Aff. [doc. # 99-2] 29, is at best a"bare declaration[] of being treated poorly on the job," Gregory, 243 F.3d at 692 (citation andquotation marks omitted), and, as such, insufficient to support her hostile work environmentclaim. See id. Whether or not Ms. Goodwine subjectively perceived her environment to be"abusive" or "hostile" beginning in January or early February 2007, she has not proffered anyevidence that she was the victim of either "a single incident [that] was extraordinarily severe," or21
Page 4 and 5: Resources on December 28, Ms. Goodw
Page 6 and 7: on February 7, 2007, Mr. Cardillo,
Page 8 and 9: Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citat
Page 10: school. See Mem. in Opp'n [doc. # 9
Page 13 and 14: Goodwine made her complaint, Mr. Be
Page 15 and 16: Contrary to Plaintiffs' suggestion,
Page 17 and 18: In response to Defendants' stated r
Page 19: transpired after Mr. Bendig was dis
Page 23 and 24: demonstrate that the conduct occurr
Page 25 and 26: environment to be abusive" and "tha
Page 27 and 28: activity are protected under § 200
Page 29 and 30: defendant, acting under color of st
Page 31 and 32: At his deposition, Mr. Cardillo cou
Page 33 and 34: deficiency in an employer's interna
Page 35: 2010). Because the Court grants Def

Connecticut District Court decision, Goodwine v. DCF

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?