Opinion ID: 2510361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiff's Case Against Summary Judgment

Text: {16} On summary judgment, Plaintiff did not rest on his pleadings but presented evidence against Intel's motion. Plaintiff produced evidence showing, at least arguably, that some people at Intel contemplated terminating Plaintiff even before the sexual harassment investigation was completed. On August 8, 2001, Peg Feibig, who was investigating the sexual harassment charge, wrote in her notes: How can we make the envi[ronment] safe for S[tephanie Cannadythe accuser]? Terminate K[irk Juneau]? He is showing no ownership/accountability. Plaintiff offers this statement as evidence that the Human Resources Department was contemplating termination even before its investigation was complete. Plaintiff further bolstered his position that the alleged harassment was only an excuse for his termination when he submitted to the district court Cannaday's testimony that all she wanted was for the conversations to stop or to be moved and that Plaintiff never made any sexual statements directly. Despite Intel's more benign explanation of the Feibig notations, we conclude that at trial a fact-finder could reasonably infer from this evidence that Intel's investigators may have prejudged Plaintiff, concluding that he had to show accountability for acts he denied committing. {17} Plaintiff also demonstrated that Harris, a supervisor in the Human Resources Department and a member of Plaintiff's church, involved himself in the investigation. Harris arranged a meeting with Plaintiff at a local restaurant where, according to Plaintiff, he urged him to admit to being part of the harassment. Plaintiff testified that he was told to seek forgiveness for what he had done and that if he continued to pursue litigation and be defiant, no rock would be left unturned. Harris acknowledged the meeting, but claimed it was only to see if he and Plaintiff were able to separate their friendship from what was going on at work and that he specifically refused to talk about what was going on at Intel. Again, a reasonable fact-finder could infer from this meeting, including its timing and its context, that Plaintiff was being threatened with retaliation if he continued to contest the allegations against him and filed a claim. {18} After Plaintiff did file with the EEOC, the alleged retaliation only became more intense and continued over the ensuing months. When Plaintiff's supervisor found out about the EEOC claim, she was ready to issue him another written warning but was told to hold off at that point. Although Plaintiff had received critical work evaluations prior to his supervisor's discovery of the EEOC claim, the timing, frequency, and degree of criticism increased significantly after Plaintiff filed with the EEOC. Plaintiff testified on deposition that a co-worker, Mike Aloi, told him that Russell instructed Plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Jim Graff, to revise Plaintiff's task assignments to show them as incomplete, and thereby set Plaintiff up for termination. If admissible at trial, these statements would be clear evidence of retaliation. {19} In addition to what Russell may have told third-parties, Plaintiff also testified that Russell complained directly to him, showing her hostility toward Plaintiff and his EEOC claim. In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that Russell stated the EEOC claim was nonsense, and it was such a headache, and she wished she did not have to deal with it. Russell showed her hostility by telling Plaintiff that he created an extra workload for her, and that she had to babysit Plaintiff and spend enormous amounts of time with Plaintiff, as opposed to the rest of the group under her supervision. Plaintiff provided direct evidence of Russell's hostility towards him. On December 5, 2001, when a letter from Plaintiff's attorney was read to Russell, she wrote in her notes the word disgusting in response to its contents. Arguably, all of Russell's remarks could be interpreted by the fact-finder as evidence of a retaliatory environment, animated by Russell's desire to get even with Plaintiff for filing the EEOC claim and including her in it.