Title: Boulton v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Boulton v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc. (2002-290); 175 Vt. 413; 834 A.2d 37

2003 VT 72

[Filed 29-Aug-2003]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors  in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 2003 VT 72

                                No. 2002-290

  Leslie G. Boulton                            Supreme Court

                                               On Appeal from
       v.                                      Windsor Superior Court

  CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc.               March Term, 2003
  
  Alan W. Cook, J.

  Norman E. Watts, Woodstock, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Karen McAndrew and Amy M. McLaughlin of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C.,
  Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Gibson, J.
            (Ret.), Specially  Assigned 

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiff Leslie Boulton appeals from the Windsor
  Superior  Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant CLD
  Consulting Engineers on  plaintiff's claims against CLD for breach of
  implied contract, wrongful termination, gender  discrimination, and
  intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Boulton resigned from CLD
  after  being informed that she was being demoted from her position as
  branch manager.  Following her  resignation, she brought suit, claiming she
  had been constructively discharged and that CLD's  treatment of her
  amounted to several actionable violations of her rights as an employee. 
  The trial  court granted summary judgment to CLD on all of her counts.  On
  appeal, Boulton contends that  she presented sufficient evidence to survive
  summary judgment on her claims that (1) CLD  wrongfully terminated her in
  violation of its personnel policies; (2) CLD violated the associated 
  covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an implied employment contract;
  (3) CLD committed gender  discrimination in treating plaintiff, a female
  employee, differently from similarly situated male  employees; and (4)
  CLD's treatment of plaintiff was so outrageous that CLD could be found
  liable for  intentional infliction of emotional distress.  We affirm. 

       ¶  2.  Plaintiff had worked for CLD for thirteen years.  She started
  in 1985  as an entry-level engineer.  In 1992, she left her position with
  CLD to pursue a  graduate degree in environmental engineering.  She
  returned in 1994, and quickly became  a manager.  Her performance review
  dated June 2, 1999, is positive, with the exception  of a note that
  plaintiff, while an excellent mentor and teacher, sometimes went on  "minor
  rampages" and "sometimes trie[d] to do it all" rather than delegating work
  to  others.  In 1999, plaintiff applied for the position of branch manager
  of CLD's Norwich  office.  According to plaintiff's deposition testimony,
  CEO Tim Golde did not consider  her suitable for the branch manager
  position.  Golde told Boulton that he felt that she  was "unapproachable"
  and "intimidating."  Nevertheless, Golde and the other CLD partners  were
  willing to give Boulton an opportunity to try as Norwich branch manager. 
  She  served in this position from November of 1999 until September of 2000. 

       ¶  3.  As reflected in her performance review dated April 12, 2000,
  senior  management perceived that plaintiff had difficulty "settling into
  the branch manager  position."  While she received excellent ratings for
  technical knowledge and client  service, the review noted that she was
  having trouble solving personnel problems and  delegating work and
  authority to others.  A number of employees resigned during  plaintiff's
  tenure as branch manager, and several of them expressed the belief that 
  plaintiff's management style created a stressful work environment.  In June
  of 2000,  plaintiff met with Golde and CLD's business consultant Leslie
  Kagan to discuss  management style. After a period of improvement following
  the Kagan meeting, employees  indicated that the situation in the Norwich
  office continued to deteriorate.  In  September, another employee resigned
  and sent a letter criticizing plaintiff's  management.  Following this
  episode, CLD notified plaintiff that she was being relieved  of the
  position of branch manager and transferred back to the Manchester, New
  Hampshire  office where she was offered a position as a project engineer.  

       ¶  4.  Plaintiff was provided with a letter outlining the options
  available  to her at the Manchester office.  The letter stated that the
  exact terms of this  position would require further discussion, but that it
  could be on one of the highway  design teams or working directly with Tim
  Golde.  Her salary was to be decreased from  $72,000 to $60,000 per year. 
  Plaintiff's complaint states that this demotion was "a  complete surprise
  to plaintiff and an extreme professional humiliation for her."  She  did
  not consider the work she was being offered in Manchester a realistic
  option.  She  asserts that as a result of intolerable working conditions,
  she was forced to resign.    Plaintiff filed this suit seeking compensation
  for damages suffered as a result of the  circumstances surrounding her
  demotion and subsequent resignation, which she alleges to  have been a
  constructive discharge.  CLD moved for summary judgment on all counts.  The 
  trial court granted the motion, concluding that plaintiff's evidence,
  consisting largely  of her own deposition, did not establish genuine issues
  of material fact and failed to  articulate specific acts of wrongdoing by
  CLD to support her claims for compensation. 

       ¶  5.  "In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies
  the same  standard as the trial court."  Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165
  Vt. 306, 309,