GENELLA v. RENAISSANCE MEDIA LLC

PETER BEER, Senior District Judge

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment which came for hearing on January 21, 2004, with oral argument. After consideration of the Motion, the arguments on both sides, and the applicable law, the Court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment.

This is a suit for wrongful termination alleging sexual harassment and violation of Louisiana's whistleblower statute.

Plaintiff was employed by Charter Communications, LLC., (Charter), a cable television, internet, and broadband service provider, for approximately 14 years, until April 5, 2002. Plaintiff worked as a warehouse lead, and his direct supervisor was Rick Ford until December 2000, when Linda Miller became Plaintiffs supervisor. Plaintiff has a good work record, and there is evidence that he received routine salary increases and advanced his education by taking cable industry courses.

On March 5, 2002, Miller and Plaintiff had an altercation regarding a spiral notebook which Miller attempted to look through. The notebook allegedly contained company information, although Plaintiff alleges that it also contained personal information. There were no witnesses to the altercation, but Miller immediately reported the incident. Plaintiff was put on administrative leave, and terminated after the company conducted an investigation of the incident.

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in reprisal for having informed the company that his former supervisor, Ford, had used company funds to repair an automobile he had purchased from the company in January 2001. By letter dated September 10, 2001, he wrote Charter headquarters regarding this alleged theft. Ford later re-paid the money, and subsequently resigned from the company.

Plaintiff alleges that after this, he was harassed by his new supervisor, Miller, who was Ford's friend. By letter dated December 10, 2001, Plaintiff wrote again to company headquarters regarding this harassment. He alleges that he was sexually harassed by two flyers distributed in the office and that bottles of urine were placed in his office, spilled in his office and spilled in front of his house. Plaintiff alleges that this hostility escalated into the altercation that took place regarding the notebook.

Defendants move for summary judgment alleging that Plaintiffs claims do not meet the standards for invoking the whistleblower statute, and that plaintiff's allegations do not make out a case of sexual harassment. They contend that Plaintiff was terminated as a result of the altercation with his supervisor, Linda Miller.

La. R.S. 23:937, Louisiana's general whistleblower statute, is not applicable here, as the prerequisite for filing a claim under this statute is that an "employer must have committed a violation of state law." Barber v. Marine Drilling Management, Inc. 2002 WL 237848 (E.D. La.). Plaintiff does not contend that Charter broke the law, rather that Charter was a victim of its employee's actions.

To bring a claim under Title VII, where an employee has suffered a "tangible employment action," plaintiff must show that there was nexus between the harassment and the termination. To prove retaliation, the employee must prove that an adverse employment action occurred and that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 118 S.Ct. 2275(1998). Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate such a nexus.

The two flyers and the urine bottle incidents took place several months before his termination. Indeed, the flyers were allegedly distributed before his correspondence with company headquarters, and Charter took immediate, reasonable action to stop the harassment.

It is disappointing that Plaintiff was treated poorly by the Defendant company and by Plaintiffs colleagues, especially in light of his lengthy employment and solid performance record. Even so, it must be noted that lawsuits are pretty easy to file. When that happens, citizens and companies are thus exposed to possible liability. To have this happen against a nebulous standard is worrisome and frustrating. So, when a claim is made, the Court is obliged to balance the seriousness of the risk of liability against the social utility of the claim. The events described by Plaintiff simply don't measure up the to stuff of lawsuits in the U.S. District Court. The alleged facts, taken on their face, and the applicable law, taken at its fair reading, don't come together to make an adjudicative issue, poorly treated as the Plaintiff may have been.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Counsel for the defendant is requested to submit a judgment consistent with this Order, each party to bear its own costs.