Hampton v. Gannett Co., Inc. OSA

296 F. Supp. 2d 716, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi
DecidedDecember 15, 2003
Docket3:02-cv-01342
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 F. Supp. 2d 716 (Hampton v. Gannett Co., Inc. OSA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hampton v. Gannett Co., Inc. OSA, 296 F. Supp. 2d 716, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788 (S.D. Miss. 2003).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

BARBOUR, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Gannett Co., Inc. and Defendant Gan-nett River States Publishing Corp., d/b/a The Clarion Ledger (hereinafter collectively referenced as “Gannett”). The Motion was filed on October 15, 2003. Having considered the Motion, Response and Rebuttal, as well as binding legal authority, the Court finds that the Motion for Summary Judgment is well taken in part and should be granted in part, and that the Motion is not well taken in part and should be denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1

This case arises out of alleged employment discrimination suffered by Plaintiff Valerie Hampton. Plaintiff .alleges that she suffered discrimination based on her • gender, female, and based on her religion, Apostolic. The claims for gender discrimination and religious discrimination are brought under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e el seq., and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Complaint also states related state law claims of assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. A chronology of relevant events follows:

02-02-98: An intra-organization complaint of sexual harassment was alleged by Gannett employee Valerie Austin against Dale Martin. Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit “G,” Sexual Harassment Complaint. Gannett alleges that Martin was given an oral reprimand, but no written warning was issued.
08-27-98: Plaintiff was hired by Gannett as a part time material handler.
01-11-99: Plaintiff was promoted by Gannett to the position of dispatch clerk. Dale Martin was her supervisor. 2
03-02-99: ■ Plaintiff attended the “New Hire Orientation” program at Gannett, at which she was informed about procedures regarding the reporting of sexual harassment.
03-??-99: .An intra-organization complaint of sexual harassment was alleged by Gannett employee Heloise Smith against Dale Martin.
*718 03 — ??—99: Plaintiff alleges that she had sexual intercourse with Dale Martin at her apartment, after Martin threatened to have her employment with Gannett terminated if she failed to engage in sex with him. No physical force was employed by Martin during this incident.
04 — ??—99: Plaintiff alleges that she again had sexual intercourse with Dale Martin at her apartment. Martin allegedly again threatened her job if she failed to comply. No physical force was used by Martin in this encounter.
04-13-99: A written warning was issued by Thomas Privett to Dale Martin. Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit “H,” Memorandum. Privett was Martin’s supervisor at Gannett. The warning states “[t]his is to record a final warning to Dale [Martin] for alleged improper sexual advances toward a subordinate. Any additional allegations of this type may lead to further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.” Id.
07-20-99: Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against Gannett with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”). Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit “I,” EEOC charge form. Under the heading of the EEOC form titled “CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON,” Plaintiff placed an “x” in the boxes fronting each of the following: (1) “SEX;” (2) “RELIGION;” and (3) “RETALIATION.” Id. (capitols in original).
07-23-99: Plaintiff met with Gannett human resources representative Emma Adams regarding the alleged sexual harassment by Dale Martin.
07-30-99: Dale Martin’s employment with Gannett was terminated by Gannett. Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit “L,” Employment Report.
01-??-00: Plaintiff began a medical leave of absence from her employment with Gannett.
05-31-00: The EEOC issued a Determination letter regarding Plaintiffs EEOC charge of discrimination. Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit “K,” EEOC Determination letter. Regarding Plaintiffs sex discrimination and retaliation claims, the EEOC stated:
Evidence indicated that a male supervisor in the Respondent’s advertising department used his position to solicit sex from the female employees under his supervision, including Charging Party by constantly reminding them of their probationary status and his authority to discharge them for any reason.
Evidence in the record disclosed that the male supervisor created the hostile work environment by making “sex” a term and condition of the female workers under his supervision continued employment.
5lS * * * *
The evidence disclosed that the sexually charged environment was so severe and pervasive that a reasonable person would have been compelled to resign or seek medical treatment.
*****
Based on this analysis, I have determined that the evidence obtained during the investigation established a violation of Title VII...as follows: That Charging Party was subjected to a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment and that she was compelled to seek medical treatment on the basis of her sex (female) and in retaliation for opposing an unlawful practice.
Id. Regarding Plaintiffs discrimination claim based on religion, the EEOC stated:
I have determined that the evidence obtained was insufficient to establish a violation of Title VII... as to the following: [T]hat the Respondent denied her a religious accommodation because of religion ([AJpostolic faith). Evidence in the record disclosed that the Respondent did grant Charging Party a reasonable accommodation, as requested.
Id. The Determination letter placed Plaintiff on notice that she could file a legal cause of action regarding her religious discrimination claim. Id. However, the claim had to be filed within ninety days after the date of the Determination letter. Id.
*719 01-05-01: Gannett terminated its employment relationship with Plaintiff because of her failure to return from medical leave. Rebuttal in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit “B,” Employment Report.
08-13-02: Plaintiff filed the subject Complaint with this Court.
11-13-02: Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Patricia Vick v. Brandon HMA, Inc.
167 So. 3d 259 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 F. Supp. 2d 716, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-gannett-co-inc-osa-mssd-2003.