Opinion
NO. CV-07-3044-EFS.
May 22, 2009
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In April 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Eva A. Ramirez' constructive discharge claim against Defendant Olympic Health Management Systems, Inc., but permitted her discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and punitive damages claims to survive to trial. (Ct. Rec. 282.) Defendant now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling on Plaintiff's retaliation and punitive damage claims in order to prevent manifest injustice. (Ct. Rec. 287.) Although reconsideration is highly unusual, it is appropriate if the district court is presented with 1) newly-discovered evidence, 2) an intervening change in controlling law, or 3) evidence that its decision was manifestly unjust. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). After review, the Court agrees in part — preventing manifest injustice necessitates dismissing Plaintiff's retaliation claim; her punitive damages claim, meanwhile, remains an issue for trial.
I. Discussion
A. Retaliation Claim
The Court initially concluded that Plaintiff's retaliation claim was a jury question because Defendant's decision to hold an inter-office conference call about her discrimination complaint, while well-intentioned, violated Defendant's privacy policy and could deter reasonable workers from disclosing sensitive harassment complaints. (Ct. Rec. 282 at 26.)
There are three (3) reasons that warrant the Court to reconsider this decision. First, Defendant's complaint-investigation policy does not guarantee privacy; rather, it states that confidentially will be maintained "to the extent possible." (Ct. Rec. 136-8 at 63.) Second, Plaintiff's retaliation claim, which rests on the impropriety of being asked to publicly disclose discrimination concerns, is belied by Plaintiff's own conduct because she made her concerns known to the entire office before the inter-office conference call. Third, the Court previously concluded that Defendant's inter-office conference call was well-intentioned and even made Plaintiff feel "good." (Ct. Rec. 282 at 25-26.) In such scenarios, Ninth Circuit case law is clear: "An employer's legitimate effort to deal with a traumatic workplace situation and educate its employees regarding [] harassment cannot be the basis for a retaliation claim under Title VII." Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 929 (9th Cir. 2000). Given Defendant's well-intentioned — and well-received — efforts, Plaintiff's retaliation claim cannot survive.
When asked who she spoke with about the Mexican wall comment, Plaintiff responded: "When we got back to the office, everybody." (Ct. Rec. 136-2 at 99.)
B. Punitive Damages Claim
Defendant argues that a similar fate awaits Plaintiff's punitive damages claim because 1) there is no evidence that it acted with either evil motive or reckless indifference to Plaintiff, and 2) it cannot be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of its managers when those decisions "are contrary to the employer's `good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.'" (Ct. Rec. 288 at 4) (citing Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 545 (1999)).
Defendant is mistaken. There is evidence that Defendant acted with either evil motive or reckless indifference to Plaintiff. Examples include Barbara Bloomfield's repeatedly discriminatory conduct and statements towards Plaintiff, as well as Katrina Borth and Betty Hill's failure to initially report or address Plaintiff's complaints about Ms. Bloomfield in a zero tolerance environment. And even though Defendant has a well-established anti-harassment policy, vicarious liability may nevertheless exist because the three (3) supervisors responsible for enforcing Defendant's anti-harassment policies at the Yakima office — Ms. Hill, Ms. Borth, and Ms. Bloomfield — either delayed or did not at all report the workplace misconduct Plaintiff complained of. The Court therefore properly concluded that punitive damages is a jury question. Because there is no manifest injustice, reconsideration on this issue is inappropriate.
Of course, this is after viewing the evidence in Plaintiff's favor. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999).
II. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Ct. Rec. 287 ) is GRANTED (retaliation claim is dismissed) and DENIED (punitive damages claim survives) IN PART.
2. An Amended Summary Judgment Order will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel.