Title: Beckmann v. Edson Hill Manor, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Beckmann v. Edson Hill Manor, Inc. (99-155); 171 Vt. 607; 764 A.2d 1220

[Filed 14-Nov-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-155

                               JUNE TERM, 2000

Anita Beckmann	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Lamoille Superior Court
                                       }	
                                       }
Edson Hill Manor, Inc., et al.	       }	DOCKET NO. 145-7-95 Lecv

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Anita Beckmann appeals a Lamoille Superior Court judgment
  for defendants Edson  Hill Manor, Inc., Eric Lande, Billy O'Neal, Nicole
  Bourassa, and Peg White, in a discriminatory  retaliation action. Plaintiff
  argues that the trial court erred because it failed to consider whether 
  Edson Hill Manor's head chef and other employees retaliated against
  plaintiff by subjecting her to  further harassment after she complained
  about sexual harassment. We affirm.

       The trial court found the following facts. From September 1994 to
  March 1995, plaintiff was  employed by defendant Edson Hill Manor, Inc. as
  a member of the waitstaff in the dining room and  resident caretaker at the
  inn. At all times relevant to plaintiff's complaint, Eric Lande was
  president  and majority stockholder of the corporations that own Edson Hill
  Manor, Inc.  Billy O'Neal, general  manager of the Manor, hired plaintiff,
  and had supervisory responsibility over the waitstaff and the  kitchen
  staff.  Nicole Bourassa, dining room manager, held supervisory
  responsibility over the  waitstaff. Matt Delos was the head chef with
  supervisory responsibility over the kitchen staff, and  Peg White was the
  sous chef.  Each of these individuals was personally involved in the
  operation of  the Manor or the restaurant on a regular basis.

       Plaintiff claimed that chef made derogatory comments to her,
  including:  "Did you get laid  today?" and, "You know, you've got a really
  nice ass."  Chef denied making these remarks.  The trial  court noted,
  however, that chef signed a letter of apology to plaintiff, in which he
  conceded  culpability. He then recanted this letter in his trial testimony,
  saying that he signed it to end the  litigation.  Defendant sous chef also
  denied hearing all of the alleged  remarks, except the first, to  which she
  promptly responded to chef that it was "none of his business."

       Plaintiff testified that she responded immediately to chef's second
  comment, saying, "That's  called sexual harassment."  She further testified
  that within ten minutes, sous chef and a kitchen  assistant joked about
  sexual harassment and refused to answer plaintiff's questions about the
  menu,  instead replying: "We better not talk to you because anything we
  might say, you might accuse us of  sexual harassment." Plaintiff also
  testified that chef refused to answer her questions about the menu  as
  well. She testified that this atmosphere continued for weeks after the
  incident. 

 

       Plaintiff left defendants' employ in March 1995, and brought suit. 
  Plaintiff's complaint alleged  intentional infliction of emotional
  distress, sexual harassment, retaliation for her complaints of  sexual
  harassment, wrongful interference with her ability to seek gainful
  employment elsewhere, and  wrongful withholding of tips.  The trial court
  dismissed the claims for intentional infliction of  emotional distress and
  wrongful withholding of tips. In its opinion, the court found that
  plaintiff  failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) she
  was sexually harassed by her  coworkers; (2) she was the victim of
  retaliatory constructive discharge; or (3) the Manor interfered in  any way
  with her ability to seek gainful employment elsewhere.

       Plaintiff concedes that the trial court's findings of fact and
  conclusions of law may be fairly  construed to deny her claim that
  defendants reduced her work hours in retaliation for her sexual  harassment
  complaint.  Plaintiff argues, however, that the trial court failed to
  consider "whether or  not the further harassment of Ms. Beckmann by fellow
  employees and Chef Delos constituted  retaliation in violation of Vermont's
  Fair Employment Practices Act, 21 V.S.A. § 495(a)(5), and Title  VII, 42
  U.S.C. 2000e-3(a)." 

       Specifically, plaintiff contends that the court erred by addressing
  "the issue of co-worker  harassment solely in the context of her sexual
  harassment claim and not in the legally distinct context  of her
  retaliation claim."  Plaintiff asserts that the court's discussion of
  plaintiff's relationship with  her co-workers as hostile work environment
  rather than retaliation demonstrates that the court did  not adequately
  address her retaliatory co-worker harassment claim.  We disagree,  and
  determine that  the trial court's consideration of plaintiff's claims and
  evidence was adequate to support its findings.  See Secretary v. Irish, 169
  Vt. 407, 419,