Leopold v. Baccarat, Inc.

174 F.3d 261 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

From August 1971 until 1994, P worked for D, a maker, and retailer of fine china and crystal, at its New York store. P worked in the retail showroom as a saleswoman. Following her discharge, at the age of 62, P filed the present action in the district court. P alleged that she had been fired on account of her age, in violation of the ADEA and the NYHRL, and that prior to her discharge, her workplace 'was permeated with a discriminatorily hostile and abusive environment of sexual harassment,' an atmosphere that was 'tolerated, encouraged and fostered' by D. Each party filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude certain evidence expected to be offered by the other at trial. P sought to exclude evidence that she had made certain bigoted comments: (1) a statement to a Jewish co-worker that 'they should have made you a lamp shade like the rest of you people,' (2) remarks that a former store manager was gay and suffered from AIDS, (3) remarks that another co-worker was suffering from a nervous breakdown, and (4) a statement that a third co-worker 'is a Latin' who 'has problems with women telling him what to do.' D sought to exclude, (1) evidence of the termination of another former employee, Irma Rivera, which occurred one year after P was fired and under a new supervisor and a new company president, (2) testimony by two former employees, Maxine Kroyder and Beatrice Wishnick, concerning the termination of their employment in D's accounting department, and (3) evidence that P's former supervisor had referred to himself as a 'Nazi' and had stated that he 'admires Nazis.' The court denied P's motion to exclude the evidence of her comments, denied D's motion to exclude the testimony of Kroyder and Wishnick, and granted D's motion to exclude the evidence of Rivera's termination and the supervisor's 'Nazi' comments. The court granted D's motion to exclude testimony by P that D had terminated several employees--other than herself, Rivera, Kroyder, and Wishnick--after they had reached their early 60s. P's evidence of hostile work environment consisted entirely of her own testimony that her supervisor, Jonathan Watts, had made certain statements that he 'threatened . . . to fire us [the saleswomen]' and that he 'said he wanted to change the sales staff and that he wanted young and sexy on the [sales] floor.' P stated that Watts made such comments 'continually, ' 'practically weekly,' 'several times,' 'repeatedly,' and 'once or twice a week.' In addition, Watts 'used to say' that one of P's co-workers had a high number of sales because ''she flirts and attracts all the male customers,'' and he 'said P a few times, 'For your age, you're in very good shape.'' P testified that at a Christmas dinner, Watts responded angrily to criticism by the saleswomen and 'screamed' at them: ''You're nothing but a bunch of pussies,' he said, 'You don't know how to sell.'' Watts also instigated arguments among the saleswomen and, when confronted, explained that ''I love it when women fight.'' D's president, upon notifying P of her termination, had explained that 'you're 62 years old now, you have a pension.' P had an above-average employee evaluation in early 1993, and the absence of any appreciable reduction in commissions earned by her in 1993 and 1994, as compared with earlier years. P introduced--over ds objection--testimony by Kroyder and Wishnick, the two former employees who had worked in the accounting department; each stated that her employment had been terminated at age 62. D moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the motion as to the age discrimination claim but granted the motion as to the hostile work environment claim. Watts testified that D had made several bigoted remarks. Watts claimed that P had refused to comply with his instructions, in April 1994, to contact corporate customers on a regular basis, and she had responded poorly to his criticism, in May 1994, based on multiple complaints by a customer. Watts claimed that P was fired because of 'her continuing conflicts with almost every employee in the store' and 'the severe difficulty he had in managing her.' The jury returned a verdict for D. P appealed.