(Names have been changed)
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Telser admitted that on September 27, 2004, Jen spoke to Telser at Telser’s work space about Plaintiff and Pitt. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 19). However, Telser alleged that Jen said only that she was told that Pitt made Plaintiff feel “uncomfortable.” (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 20). Telser testified that she then went directly to the desk of Angela Keane, Defendant's Human Resources manager. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 21). Telser allegedly told Keane that there was something Telser needed to address with Keane and Ms. Keane. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 22). Telser testified that allegedly they both then walked to the office of Ms. Keane, the owner of Defendant. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 23)).
Telser alleged that around 5:00 p.m. on September 27th she told Keane and Keane only that she heard from Jen that Plaintiff was “uncomfortable” around Pitt. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 24). Keane allegedly stated that they needed to find out why. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 25). They allegedly agreed that this matter should be discussed with Plaintiff during her 14-Day Evaluation that was scheduled for the next day, September 28th. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 26).
On September 28, 2004, Plaintiff's 14-Day Evaluation was conducted. Plaintiff, Keane and Denise Canfield were the only persons present. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 27). Canfield was the leader of the call center. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 28). Plaintiff was given a generally positive review. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 29). During this meeting, Plaintiff told Keane and Canfield that (1) Pitt had been staring at her, (2) Truman also noticed this, (3) Pitt had looked down her shirt, (4) and Pitt had pressed down on her thigh as he was training her. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 30). Plaintiff was told to keep the meeting confidential. (Id.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff stated that she was no longer uncomfortable when the meeting ended. (Id.) Plaintiff denies that she said this. (Id.)
After the 14-Day Evaluation meeting, Plaintiff immediately sent the following email to Truman:
You must delete this once read.... I talked to Denise and Angela about the issue w/ him but I’m no longer to discuss it with you because I told them that I’ve been talking to you about it too and that you noticed things as well staring at me .... (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 31) (emphasis added).
A brief email exchange then continued between Truman and Plaintiff, including the following:
I have to trust them that they’ll take care of it so I don’t know what they are going to do????? (Id.) (emphasis added)
.
During the evening of September 28th, Canfield allegedly checked the email of Plaintiff because she had allegedly received a report that someone had sent a photo to a vendor/customer. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 32). Canfield then allegedly printed out the emails that evening. (Id.) The stack of emails that was presented as an exhibit at Plaintiff’s deposition and at Telser’s deposition contain many emails that were sent and received on September 29, 2004. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 33).
On September 29, 2004, Plaintiff was told that she was fired. (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 34). Telser admits that she was one of the decision-makers in making the determination that Plaintiff should be fired. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s Separation Notice, alleges that she was fired because of a “disregard for [Defendant’s personal email] policy and [confidentiality] direction from supervisor.” (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 35). However, in a subsequent related proceeding before the Illinois Department of Human Rights, Defendant's attorney, Cara R. Miles, admitted in a letter dated May 19, 2005 to the Department, that Defendant “wants to emphasize that the [Plaintiff] was not discharged for her abuse of email.” (P. 56.1 Additional Fact 36).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Revised: 9/20/2008
Nothing
on this page or any of the pages constituting this web site should be
construed as offering legal advice.
