Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cindy Moll v. Telesector Resources Group

May 20, 2012

CINDY MOLL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TELESECTOR RESOURCES GROUP, INC., D/B/A VERIZON SERVICES GROUP, A/K/A VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Cindy L. Moll ("Plaintiff") commenced this action on October 5, 2004, alleging that Defendant Telesector Resources Group, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Services Group, a/k/a Verizon New York, Inc. ("Verizon") discriminated against her based on her gender, subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment, retaliated against her following her complaints of discrimination and paid her less than male employees performing the same duties, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. EXEC. L. §§ 290 et seq., andthe Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq.(Docket Nos. 1, 57.) Several of the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint were dismissed by this Court's September 28, 2005, Decision and Order on Verizon's Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 13.)

The remaining claims before this Court are Plaintiff's Title VII claims of disparate treatment and retaliation relating to events occurring on or after November 23, 2002; state law claims of disparate treatment and retaliation relating to events occurring on or after October 5, 2001; and her EPA claim limited to events on or after October 5, 2001.Verizon has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment*fn1 seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 101.) For the following reasons, Verizon's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Verizon is a provider of telecommunication products and services. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff was hired in June, 1990, by a predecessor of Verizon, NYNEX*fn2 and spent the first seven years of her employment performing secretarial tasks as a sales assistant, which was a union-represented clerical position. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 11-12.) At that time, she possessed a high school diploma, and later received an Associate's Degree in Business in 1999 and then a Bachelor's Degree in Business in 2006. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 11; Pl. Aff. (Docket No. 109) ¶ 2.)

As a sales assistant, Plaintiff's duties included clerical tasks, such as typing, filing, answering telephones, compiling reports, preparing vouchers, making travel arrangements, ordering supplies, and providing support for thirteen people. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 12.) Sometime in 1997, Plaintiff was offered a permanent, salaried position as a Systems Analyst in the NYNEX Systems Marketing branch. She accepted the promotion and, as a result, received a salary increase to $47,400.00, 35.8 percent more than what she earned in her former clerical position. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 18.) Shortly before Plaintiff's promotion, Tom Spencer, a manager at Verizon, transferred from his position as Market Administrator to the position of Senior Systems Analyst in NYNEX Systems Marketing (later known as Verizon Enterprise Solutions Group or "ESG"), for which he received a $2,500.00 salary increase. Spencer accepted the promotion only after he negotiated a pay raise. His starting base salary as a Senior Systems Analyst was $61,300.00 in 1997. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 14-17.)

In January 2000, Plaintiff requested company-owned tickets to take customers to a professional hockey game in Buffalo. That request was denied, and Plaintiff did not make another request after that. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 20). Plaintiff avers that she was denied access to the tickets because she was pregnant at the time, and that the company-owned tickets were made available to her male co-workers. (Pl. Ex. J (Irving Depo.) at 143-148; Docket; Ex. K (Dean Depo.) at 149-152.) In March, 2000, Plaintiff took maternity leave from her position from Verizon, and returned on a part-time basis in August, 2000. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 21-22.)

At the close of 2000, a male Corporate Account Manager ("CAM"), Michael Finnegan received a rating of "Does Not Meet Position Requirements," and was demoted. His new position paid $17,000.00 less than what he previously earned as a CAM. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 26.)

As of January, 2001, the Verizon ESG Sales Engineers in the Buffalo office were Plaintiff, Tom Spencer (Sales Engineer II), and Anne Byrne (Sales Engineer I). The three Sales Engineers reported to Sales Engineering Manager Daniel Irving. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 27-29.)Effective January 1, 2001, Plaintiff received a base salary increase to $51,000.00, up 7.14 percent from the year before. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 31). At that time, Plaintiff had the lowest base salary in her group. Spencer earned a base salary of $66,500.00, and Byrne earned a base salary of $57,900.00. (Pl. Ex. N.)

In April, 2001 Anne Byrne, who is female, was promoted to the position of Sales Engineer II.(Def. Stmt. ¶ 33).Around that time, Plaintiff returned to work on a full-time basis from maternity leave/gradual return to work, and received a base salary increase of 4.71 percent to $53,400.00. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 34-35.)

In June, 2001, Plaintiff and eight other Verizon employees received an e-mail from Daniel Irving directing them to reduce the number of e-mails sent to him so that he could discern those that were "important" from those that were "not-so important." (Def. Stmt. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff elaborates that she was not permitted to send him e-mails at all, was not permitted to leave him voice mail messages, and was required to speak with him in person if she had any questions for him. Further, she alleges that Irving followed her to client meetings, and did not do this with the other Sales Engineers. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 41.)

In the fall of 2001, CAM Tim Mitten was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, requiring him by year-end to achieve certain milestones, or, absent satisfactory achievement, face termination. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 49.)

In December of 2001, Daniel Irving questioned Plaintiff regarding complaints he received from a Verizon business office representative describing Plaintiff as unresponsive. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 50.) Plaintiff acknowledged that there was an occasion where she did not respond to a business office representative, but states that the issue involved was not one that she as a Sales Engineer would typically deal with. As a result of the complaint, Plaintiff was placed on a counseling plan. Plaintiff avers that the male employees at Verizon, despite committing more serious performance problems, received less or no discipline. Specifically, CAMs Michael Finnegan and Ray Brogan, and Sales Engineers David Winley and Kevin Dean.(Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 89-93; Pl. Ex. D (Gaglione Depo.) at 178-79; Pl. Ex. T (Van Hoesen Depo.) at 198-209.)

During 2002, Plaintiff, Anne Byrne, and Tom Spencer were the Sales Engineers in the Verizon ESG Buffalo office. Byrne and Spencer held the position of Sales Engineer II as of January, 2002. The three Sales Engineers all performed their work from cubicles, and not offices, during the year 2002. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 51-82.)

Also during 2002, Byrne, Spencer, and Plaintiff were assigned to act as a single point of contact for certain accounts. Plaintiff states that Winley and Dean, who were higher-level Sales Engineers, were not required to do so. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 53; Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 82-83.)

Plaintiff's performance-based incentive compensation for 2002 was based on a team goal relating to the entire Sales Engineering team in the Verizon ESG Buffalo Office. That team included Plaintiff, Anne Byrne, Tom Spencer, Sara DeLena, and CAMs Tim Mitten and Jim Keller. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 54.)

On March 12, 2002, Daniel Irving met with Plaintiff and presented his evaluation of her overall performance for the year 2001 as "meets expectations." (Def. Stmt. ¶ 56.) Specifically, Irving rated Plaintiff as "needing improvement" in two categories, "very effective" in one category, and "meets expectations" for another. According to Plaintiff, this was the first appraisal that she received from Irving in which he rated her as "needs improvement" in any category. (Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 46, 49, 50; Pl. Ex. F.) A "meets expectations" rating means that an employee meets the minimum requirements of the job, and is considered a satisfactory rating in that employees with such ratings typically receive merit raises and are eligible for promotion provided they are qualified for the job to which they are seeking promotion. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 57-58.)

That day, Plaintiff began a counseling session with Irving concerning the complaints made by business office representatives that Plaintiff was unresponsive, despite her recent appraisal stating that she was "very customer focused as is very responsive to customer needs."(Def. Stmt. ¶ 59; Docket No. 109, Ex. F.) Plaintiff acknowledged to Irving, however, that she "need[ed] to be more responsive to [business office representatives'] requests." (Def. Stmt. ¶ 61.) Additionally, Plaintiff was placed on the counseling plan based on a deficient Request for Proposal ("RFP") she submitted to Rochester Schools in January, 2002, which was ultimately rejected. Plaintiff contends, however, that Rochester Schools rejected Verizon's bid on the basis of receiving a lower bid from a competitor, and not because of deficiencies in her RFP. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 59-60; Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 48, 50.) Plaintiff satisfactorily completed the counseling session two months later. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 64.)

Also in March, 2002, Plaintiff received a pay raise of 1.87 percent, to $54,400, a cumulative 14.2 percent increase from the year 2000. As of March 12, 2002, Plaintiff was the lowest paid Sales Engineer in the ESG Buffalo office. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 63; Pl. Aff. ¶ 30.)

On August 4, 2002, CAM Tim Mitten was placed on another Sales Performance Improvement Plan, which included defined objectives, call and proposal requirements, and mandatory weekly conferences. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 65.)

Prior to the merger with Bell Atlantic, GTE had a history of offering communications technology products and services that Bell Atlantic did not offer, such as voice and data Customer Premise Equipment ("CPE"). Following the merger, the former Bell Atlantic sales team (which became part of Verizon ESG) had the opportunity to market and sell communication technology products that were not previously part of the Bell Atlantic product line. Because the majority of the former Bell Atlantic sales team, including Plaintiff, had little hands-on experience with voice and data CPE products, Verizon ESG management decided to recruit and hire individuals from outside the company with experience in CPE products. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 67-71.)

With respect to the Buffalo ESG office, Verizon created two new positions, titled Senior Specialist-Technology Solutions. One position was created to focus exclusively on voice CPE, and the other on data CPE. Both positions carried a competitive starting salary of $90,000.00. Plaintiff applied for neither position. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 72-73, 75.)

Daniel Irving was the hiring manager for the voice and data Senior Specialist-Technology Solutions positions in Buffalo, who ultimately offered one position to David Winley. According to Irving, Winely was selected because he had hands-on technical experience with voice CPE products, as he had worked for Nortel Networks (a manufacturer of CPE products) for eighteen months as a Systems Engineer and GTE (a reseller of CPE products) for thirteen years. Winley accepted the position and agreed to a start date of April 1, 2002. Consistent with Verizon policy, Winley got credit for his former service time with GTE, which resulted in an allotment of twenty vacation days. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 74, 76-79.) Plaintff contends that Winley was unqualified for the position because he possessed a high school diploma and not the requisite Bachelor's degree as provided by the job announcement.*fn3 (Pl. Aff. ¶ 11; Pl. Ex. U.)

The other Senior Specialist-Technology position, relating to data CPE, was filled by Kevin Dean. Dean had previously worked as a sales engineer for Nortel Networks with a focus on data products, and worked in sales for approximately six months at Frontrunner, a reseller of such products. Irving selected Dean on the basis that he possessed marketable hands-on technical experience with data CPE products. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 80-81; Ex. V (Dean Depo.) at 11-12.)

Winley and Dean worked out of offices, not cubicles, as the positions into which they were hired were higher-level than those of the Sales Engineers (Plaintiff, Anne Byrne, and Tom Spencer), who worked out of cubicles. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 82.) Winley and Dean's positions were later re-titled Sales Engineer IV. (Pl. Ex. C (Gaglione Depo.) at 183-184.)

In 2002, the work of the Sales Engineers was segmented by product: Plaintiff was responsible for core voice or local usage products, Anne Byrne was responsible for optical services products, Tom Spencer was responsible for fast packet (data services) and Winley and Dean were responsible for voice and data CPE, respectively. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 83.)

Plaintiff contends that Winley was permitted to relocate on company time and was assisted in moving by Daniel Irving and other employees, who were also on company time. (Am. Compl. ¶ 37.) Verizon states that Daniel Irving, Kevin Dean, and Ray Brogan assisted Winley in moving, but it was not during working hours, and Irving explained that employees were required to use vacation time if he desired to move during a workday.(Def. Stmt. ¶ 89.)In contrast, Plaintiff avers that Winley was hired on April 1, 2002, but not required to report to work until May 1, 2002, allowing him time to relocate to Buffalo. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 56.) According to Winley's Employee Absence/Tardiness Record, he did not use any benefit time in April, 2002.(Pl. Ex. W.)Plaintiff claims that in October, 2001, Irving required her to take vacation days to move into a new residence. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 58.)

On June 27, 2002, Daniel Irving permitted Plaintiff to work from home, but explained that going forward, employees would no longer be permitted to work from home due to another employee's attendance problems. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 92.)

Plaintiff claims that sometime in 2001, Daniel Irving intended to manipulate a Buffalo Board of Education sale in order to have Kevin Dean receive credit as a means to help Dean meet his objective. While the sale was not manipulated and Dean did not receive credit for the sale, Plaintiff maintains that Irving made it clear that he would manipulate sales dates to assist male employees with their personal objectives, suggesting that male employees could miss personal objectives without consequence, whereas Plaintiff was placed on a counseling plan for failing to respond to a business representative.(Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 94-95; Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 64-65.)

In 2002, an $8.5 million sale was posted. According to Plaintiff, the sale was actually completed in December, 2001, and that the timing of the posting of the sale negatively impacted her incentive-based compensation for 2001 and 2002. However, Plaintiff's incentive compensation was based on a team goal, and therefore any impact also affected the incentive compensation for Sales Engineers Tom Spencer and Anne Byrne, Sales Engineer Manager Daniel Irving, CAM Jim Keller, and Regional Sales Manager Michael McGowan. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 94-95.)

In August 2002, Plaintiff's physician had advised her to take a disability leave of absence related to her thyroid. Daniel Irving asked Plaintiff if she would work from home, and Plaintiff refused. She took disability leave for three to four weeks. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 98; Pl. Aff. ¶ 62.)

In October, 2002, Plaintiff alleges that Irving followed her and another female colleague to a client meeting at Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center. The client cancelled the meeting, however, and Irving met the two women at a restaurant, had lunch with them, and paid for their lunch. Plaintiff believes Irving did so to require personal contact with Plaintiff and in retaliation for her refusal to acquiesce to his sexual advances. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 99; Pl. Aff. ¶ 33.)

The week after Christmas, 2002, Plaintiff, Anne Byrne, David Winley, and Kevin Dean all took vacation. During that time, Plaintiff and Byrne were required to check their voicemail and be reachable my cell phone. Plaintiff, however, has no knowledge of whether the same expectations were applied to Winley and Dean. Verizon states that Irving required all Sales Engineers he supervised to check messages and be reachable during non-work hours, and Spencer was required to participate in a conference call shortly after returning home from the hospital where he had undergone surgery.(Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 102-104.)

Plaintiff contends that beginning in or about April, 2001, and continuing until October, 2002, she was told that Sales Engineer promotions were frozen, but she believes that other Sales Engineers, including Mark Connor, were promoted during that period. The basis for her belief is that she heard during an October, 2002 branch meeting that two men--Mark Connor and Sean Brown--had been promoted, although she does not know when they were promoted or the reasons why. She asked Daniel Irving if the freeze had been lifted, and he responded that he did not know. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 105-106.) Plaintiff further contends that Sales Engineering Manager Chris Gaglione told her in March, 2001, that she was ready to be assessed for the position of Sales Engineer II, but Irving refused to permit Plaintiff to assess for the position. (Pl. Ex. F, Bates. #056-058; Pl. Aff. ¶ 37.) Gaglione, then based in Syracuse, New York, testified that between 2001 and 2003, he attempted to secure a promotion for a Syracuse-based Sales Engineer named David Locke, but was told there was a freeze on promotions.(Def. Stmt. ¶ 107.) Eventually, Plaintiff and Anne Byrne received promotions before Locke in 2003. (Gaglione Depo. at 74-75). When Gaglione became Sales Engineering Manager for the Verizon ESG Buffalo office in January 2003, he subsequently promoted Plaintiff because he "thought she was a good candidate for assessment, and also because her assessment . . . had been unjustifiably delayed for more than two years." (Def. Stmt. ¶ 110; Pl. Ex. S (Gaglione Decl.) ¶ 8.)

It was commonplace for Verizon employees to request promotions, and employees would have to wait to receive a desired promotion. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 108.)For example, Mark Connor was promoted in October, 2002, to Sales Engineer III, twenty-three months after his request for promotion. In the interim, he was advised that there were no positions available, or that there was a freeze in place. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 109.) Plaintiff nonetheless takes issue with the fact that Mark Connor and Sean Brown were assessed and promoted in October, 2002, when the promotion freeze was purportedly in place, and that Plaintiff herself was not promoted until ten months after Connor's promotion. (Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 69, 77.)

In early 2003, Verizon changed the Senior Specialist job title to Sales Engineer IV.

As a result of that change, David Winley and Kevin Dean had their job titles changed accordingly. As in previous years, Plaintiff's performance-based incentive compensation for 2003 was based on a team goal relating to the entire sales engineering team in the Verizon ESG Buffalo office, which now included Winley and Dean. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 111-112; Pl. Ex. D (Gaglione Depo.) at 152.)

Daniel Irving continued to be responsible for Plaintiff's performance evaluations for the year 2002. On March 11, 2003, Irving rated Plaintiff as having met the expectations of her Sales Engineer I position, noting that Plaintiff responded to the previous year's counseling session by "demonstrat[ing] more initiative in developing and pursuing sales opportunities. She worked with CAM's [sic] by establishing review sessions to uncover opportunities and to assist in closing already identified opportunities." With respect to the category "Customer Focus," Irving rated Plaintiff as "very effective" for the year 2002. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 114.)

Around the same time that Plaintiff received her 2002 performance appraisal, she received a salary increase of 4.04 percent, to $56,600.00 effective March 30, 2003. Spencer also received a salary increase to $72,800.00, a change of 4.9 percent. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 115; Pl. Ex. N.)

CAM Tim Mitten's 2002 performance appraisal was rated "Does Not Meet Position Requirements," and he was advised that he would be removed from Verizon's payroll if he did not find another position elsewhere within Verizon by January 17, 2003. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 116.) According to Plaintiff, Mitten was permitted to work in the ESG group for an additional twenty-four months after he was first disciplined for poor performance in the fall of 2001. (Pl. Ex. P (Mitten Depo.) at 158-159.)

In July, 2003, Plaintiff assessed for a promotion before a panel in Valhalla, New York, and was promoted to the position Sales Engineer II effective August 17, 2003. Plaintiff's co-worker Anne Byrne was also assessed, and was promoted from Sales Engineer II to Sales Engineer III at the same time. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 120.) Plaintiff states that this promotion was delayed for more than two years. (Pl. Aff. ¶ 31, 33.) Although Christopher Gaglione also wanted to have Syracuse-based Sales Engineer David Locke assess for a promotion as well, he was only allowed to have two candidates, and Gaglione selected Plaintiff and Anne Byrne.*fn4 (Def. Stmt. ¶ 121.)

One month later, in August, 2003, Plaintiff received another raise of 4.95 percent, to $59,00.00. Since the year 2000, Plaintiff's base salary increased 24.7 percent, up from $47,600.00. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 122.) Despite her raise, Plaintiff still earned $13,400.00 less than Tom Spencer, who was also a Sales Engineer II, who earned more in his first year as a Systems Analyst in 1997 than Plaintiff's base salary in 2003. (Pl. Ex. N.)

That same month, Verizon announced that salaried, non-union employees were eligible to participate in a buyout program through which they voluntarily would resign their employment in exchange for a severance stipend and certain other benefits when they left the payroll. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 123.) Plaintiff contends that Branch Manager Mark Van Hoesen obtained information regarding the Reduction In Force packages, whereas Plaintiff was unable to obtain details regarding the Reduction In Force package offered to her before deciding whether to accept it or not. (Pl. Ex. T (Van Hoesen Depo.) at 14-20; Pl. Aff. ¶ 101.)

On September 19, 2003, Plaintiff filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge of discrimination. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 124.)

In August or September, 2003, Daniel Irving purchased season tickets to professional hockey games for personal use. Because he could not attend all forty games, he made the tickets available to others. Irving offered the tickets to a group of male employees, which, Plaintiff contends, did not give the female employees a "greater opportunity to succeed" in that the tickets could have potentially been used for entertaining clients, even though they were purchased at Irving's own expense. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶127-128; Pl. Aff. ¶ 20, 39.) At that time, Verizon permitted employees to personally purchase sports tickets and expense them if they were used for client purposes. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 129.) Verizon and Plaintiff disagree as to whether Irving made the tickets available to everyone in the office, or only the male employees. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 130; Pl. Aff. ¶ 20.)

On October 31, 2003, Christopher Gaglione informed Plaintiff that he would permit her to work from home on days when she was "unable to be physically present in the office" due to personal obligations, provided that she "used [her] discretion and limit[ed] work from home" to days when it was necessary. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 125.) Plaintiff contends that every other Sales Engineer was provided with the opportunity to work from home except for her. (Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 62-63.)

In November, 2003, David Winley resigned from his position as Sales Engineer VI as part of Verizon's Reduction In Force. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 126.)

Plaintiff's performance-based incentive compensation for 2004 was again based on a team goal relating to the entire Sales Engineering team in the Verizon ESG Buffalo office, as well as CAMs Sara DeLena, Tim Mitten, and Jim Keller. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 132; Pl. Aff. ¶ 13.)

In early 2004, Tom Spencer resigned from his Sales Engineer position in Buffalo and took a job in Verizon's "E-911" Department. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 133.) When Spencer left the ESG work group, his salary was $76,200.00, an increase of 24.3 percent from when he entered the workgroup in 1997. In early 2004, Plaintiff's salary was $59,400.00, an increase of 25.3 percent from when she entered the work group in the same year as Spencer, 1997. (Def Stmt. ¶ 134.)

In February, 2004, Verizon hired Michael Chase as a Sales Engineer II in Buffalo, transitioning from a position as branch manager for Verizon Selected Services. As a Sales Engineer, Chase worked out of a cubicle, in the same location that Tom Spencer had used prior to his departure. (Def. Stmt. ¶137.)

In March, 2004, Christopher Gaglione met with Plaintiff and told her he had evaluated her as having "met expectations" of her Sales Engineer II job during the year 2003, commenting that she "has met the very high expectations for her position." Plaintiff disagreed with her rating. (Def Stmt. ¶¶ 138-139.) The previous year, Plaintiff received the same rating ("met expectations") and was promoted five months after her March, 2003 performance evaluation. Plaintiff argues that this promotion was unjustifiably delayed for two years. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 140; Pl. Ex. S (Gaglione Decl.) ¶ 8.)

Effective March 28, 2004, Verizon increased Plaintiff's salary by 3.54 percent, from $59,400.00 to $61,500.00 (Def. Stmt. ¶ 141.) Plaintiff believed she deserved a more generous raise, however, she was unaware of how her 2004 raise measured against the raises received by the other Sales Engineers in her office. She maintains that at all times her pay was significantly lower than Tom Spencer's, the previous male Sales Engineer in her office.

In May, 2004, Kevin Dean accepted a position with Nortel Networks and voluntarily resigned his employment with Verizon. Verizon did not fill Dean's position. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 143.)

As of May, 2004, the Sales Engineers in the Verizon ESG Buffalo office were Plaintiff, Anne Byrne, and Michael Chase. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 144.)

In May, 2004, Christopher Gaglione permitted Plaintiff to work from home when her office became too hot and humid due to a lack of air conditioning. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 145.) According to Verizon, Plaintiff made frequent requests to work from home, which Plaintiff disputes. Rather, Plaintiff only made such requests when her children were ill, and that she did not work from home as frequently as male employees, such as Michael Finnegan. (Def. Stmt. ¶ 146; Pl. Aff. ¶¶ 56, 60.)

Plaintiff claims that in June, 2004, she and other female employees were excluded from participating in a charity golf tournament. Michael Chase, the male Sales Engineer in Plaintiff's department, was also not invited to attend the golf outing. (Def. Stmt. ¶¶ 148-149.) Plaintiff did not request to participate in the tournament.(Def. Stmt. ¶ 150.) Plaintiff did not play golf in the year 2004, but states that she would typically play golf at corporate and charity events, and was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.