Opinion ID: 741743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial and the Decisions on the Merits

Text: 12 A nine-day trial was held, with the FEPA sexual harassment claim and the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to be decided by the jury, and the Title VII claim to be decided by the court. Perry presented evidence of harassment she had experienced and of harassment of other women employees of Ethan Allen. The company presented evidence from some of those accused of harassing Perry and presented evidence of its general policies regarding sexual harassment and of its responses to Perry's complaint. 13 Perry testified, inter alia, that certain of her coworkers asked her to have sex, pulled at her bra strap, pulled at her pants, pawed her neck, rubbed up against her, and grab[bed] at [her] chest. She said that whenever she passed in the vicinity of two of her coworkers, they would exchange suggestive catcalls such as, Woo-hoo, go get her ass. Perry presented evidence from other women employees of the company that confirmed portions of her testimony as to what she had experienced. Perry testified that she complained of these incidents to Ethan Allen's management on December 12, 1990, telling mid-level supervisor Dale McCoy that she was being sexually harassed by Mark Fontaine, Carl Bowen, and Barry Austin; McCoy called Perry's immediate supervisor, Richard Geoffroy, to his office, and Perry described the harassment to them. Perry testified that in September or October 1990, she had also complained to Geoffroy, a low-level supervisor, that a coworker had slipped a coffee-can lid inside her blouse. In April or May of 1990, she had complained to plant superintendent Terry Curtis, telling him that some of her coworkers were accusing her of incompetence or of malingering. 14 Perry testified that coworker Bridget Moulton too had been sexually harassed by Austin, but that Moulton had not reported the incident to Ethan Allen management. Moulton herself testified that Austin had touched her once and that she had told him to knock it off. Perry was also allowed to testify that she had seen coworker Lisa Willis get harassed [at the Ethan Allen plant] because she ... went in and complained about sexual harassment on the floor. Perry testified that Willis had been treated awful[ly] after lodging her complaint, in that coworkers refused to talk to her and that [t]he supervisor refused to associate with her. Perry was not allowed, however, to have Willis herself testify about her sexual harassment experiences. Indeed, when Willis testified that [a]fter [Willis] turned Barry [Austin] in for hassling [her], everybody g[a]ve [her] the cold shoulder, the trial judge immediately instructed the jury to ignore and not take into consideration any comments that Miss Willis stated on examination concerning any sexual harassment complaints by her. Nor was Perry allowed to have coworkers Sandra Dufour and Susan Martell testify about their experiences. 15 Some of the men Perry had accused of harassing her testified at trial. Austin admitted engaging in some of the conduct Perry described, but he characterized his actions as not unwelcome to her; others denied having engaged in the alleged conduct. Ethan Allen presented evidence that Perry's sexual harassment complaint on December 12, 1990, was the first such complaint she made to anyone above the lowest supervisory level. Perry's complaint to plant superintendent Terry Curtis in April or May of 1990, to the effect that some of her coworkers were accusing her of incompetence or of malingering, apparently did not mention harassment of a sexual nature. 16 Ethan Allen presented evidence that since at least 1985, it had an established policy forbidding sexual harassment; that the policy was set out in employee handbooks and posted on bulletin boards at the Orleans plant; and that the policy was the subject of training for supervisors and orientation for new employees. With respect to Perry's December 12, 1990 complaint, Ethan Allen personnel manager Dan Kurzman testified that he was informed of her complaint on that day and that he, McCoy, and Curtis, met with Perry that day. Kurzman told Perry he was going to investigate the complaint and said that if her allegations were found to be correct, the company would take appropriate disciplinary action. Kurzman asked Perry for the names of any witnesses who might be able to assist in the investigation; Perry responded that she had no witnesses. Kurzman instructed Curtis and McCoy to speak to Fontaine, Bowen, and Austin, the three men Perry had accused. Kurzman met with Perry again later that day to discuss the results of his investigation, informing her that the men had denied her accusations. Kurzman asked again whether Perry could think of anyone who might have heard about or seen the incidents of harassment. Perry responded by storming out of Kurzman's office. In a third meeting with Perry that day, Kurzman assured her that he would take appropriate steps to insure that there would be no unwelcome sexual activity on the floor and told Perry that if there were any problems whatever, she could come to him directly. Following his meetings with Perry, Kurzman instructed Curtis to review the company's sexual harassment policy with Bowen, Fontaine, and Austin, and directed Geoffroy and McCoy to monitor the workplace to assure that people were treated professionally, with respect and that there was no retaliation of any kind. On the same day, Kurzman also issued written statements to Austin and Fontaine, explaining the repercussions of violating the company's sexual harassment policy. Austin testified that on December 12, 1990, he was warned that those repercussions consisted of a warning, written warning, then a 3-day suspension, and then termination. Kurzman testified that after December 12, he received no further complaints from Perry. 17 At the close of the evidence, the district court granted judgment in favor of Ethan Allen as a matter of law on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and submitted the FEPA claim to the jury with special interrogatories. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ethan Allen. According to its responses to the interrogatories, Perry had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered sexual harassment through exposure to a hostile work environment, but she had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Ethan [A]llen management level employees failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action in response to plaintiff's sexual harassment. 18 Thereafter, as to Perry's Title VII claim, the district judge, in a Memorandum of Decision dated February 28, 1996 (Merits Decision), also ruled in favor of Ethan Allen. The court found first that Perry had been able to credibly relate very few particular instances of harassment by her co-workers and that the few instances of harassment which ... Perry recounted were not of a sexual nature. Merits Decision at 2. The court ruled that Perry had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to hostile work environment sexual harassment, id. at 3-4, as it concluded that the record was devoid of credible evidence which suggests plaintiff's coworkers subjected her to unwelcome sexual conduct which was frequent or severe enough to violate Title VII, id. at 4. The court also found that the credible evidence demonstrate[d] that, when plaintiff complained, Ethan Allen took immediate action and the alleged harassment ceased. Id.: 19 Upon receiving Ms. Perry's complaint, Mr. McCoy immediately summoned her supervisor, Richard Geoffroy. In addition, he passed on Ms. Perry's complaint to Daniel Kurzman, Ethan Allen's Director of Human Resources. Ethan Allen's supervisors confronted the co-workers accused of harassment and warned them that the company would not tolerate harassment. While Ms. Perry felt that the company did not take her complaint seriously, she complained of no further harassment after the meeting. 20 Id. at 2-3. The court concluded that there was no basis for imposing liability on Ethan Allen under Title VII. 21 Following the entry of judgment dismissing the complaint, Perry moved for a new trial, arguing principally that the district court had erred in excluding evidence relating to the sexual harassment of Willis and Dufour and in failing to charge the jury adequately on bases for employer liability. The district court denied the motion, concluding that even if the excluded evidence had been admitted, the jury's verdict would not be either seriously erroneous or against the weight of the evidence. The court also ruled that its instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury of the proper bases for employer liability. 22 Ethan Allen moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, the court's inherent power, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for an award of attorneys' fees as sanctions on the grounds that Perry had pursued meritless claims against innocent defendants and had engaged in abusive discovery and vexatious tactics. In a Ruling on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions dated May 9, 1996 (Sanctions Ruling), the court denied the motion, finding no 'clear evidence' of bad-faith conduct meriting sanctions. Id. at 3. 23 These appeals followed.