(FILED: April 28, 2020) ELIZABETH CUGINI
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS WASHINGTON, SC. SUPERIOR COURT (FILED: April 28, 2020) ELIZABETH CUGINI : : V. : C.A. No. WC-2008-0722 : RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF : GOVERNORS FOR HIGHER : EDUCATION, d/b/a THE : UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, : and MICHELLE NOTA : DECISION K. RODGERS, J. Before this Court are Defendants’ Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, d/b/a The University of Rhode Island (URI) and Michelle Nota (Nota, and collectively Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56 and Plaintiff Elizabeth Cugini’s (Plaintiff of Cugini), Opposition and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Limited Rule 56(d) Issues. Defendants assert they are entitled to summary judgment on Counts I through VII of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleging defamation, false light, violations of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA), and tortious interference with advantageous prospective economic relations. Conversely, Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to summary judgment on her four FEPA claims set forth in Counts III through VI. I Facts and Travel A Plaintiff’s Hiring and Performance This case arises out of a soured employment relationship between Plaintiff and URI. Plaintiff last served as the Assistant Director of URI’s Alumni Relations Office, of which Nota was the Director. Plaintiff began her employment with URI in 1992 as the Community Relations Coordinator for the URI Graduate School of Oceanography. In that role, she organized events, coordinated fundraisers for alumni of the Graduate School of Oceanography, wrote press releases and served as media liaison. At all times during her employment with URI, Plaintiff was a member of the Professional Staff Association (PSA) bargaining unit.1 After thirteen years as the Community Relations Coordinator, Plaintiff was laid off due to lack of funding. As a member of the union, Plaintiff was protected by certain recall rights provided in the collective bargaining agreement which entitled union members to be hired by URI if minimum job requirements were met. Plaintiff exercised her recall rights to obtain the position of Assistant Director of Alumni Relations for URI, effective August 1, 2005. Nota was the Director of Alumni Relations and reported to both the Alumni Association Executive Board and URI; Nota was also Cugini’s direct supervisor. Plaintiff was fifty- three years old at the time she was hired as Assistant Director. Of the eight employees 1 Plaintiff is also a member of the National Education Association of Rhode Island (NEARI), a separate bargaining unit. See Pl.’s Ex. 3, at 50 (Dep. Tr. of Cugini, Oct. 29, 2010). 2 Nota hired for the Alumni Relations Office between 1998 and 2005, Cugini was the only individual over the age of forty; however, of the thirty employees Nota supervised, eleven were over the age of forty. At the outset of Plaintiff’s employment in the Alumni Relations Office, and so she could appreciate the unique role that alumni have within the URI community, Nota provided Plaintiff an orientation manual containing an overview of the Alumni Association, an outline of alumni demographics, and an explanation of the programs supported by the Alumni Association. Defs.’ Ex. D, ¶ 3 (Statement of Nota to Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (RICHR)). Nota also reviewed, in detail, Plaintiff’s responsibilities and the various types of programming the Alumni Relations Office was charged to implement. Id. Such responsibilities included creating, coordinating, and supervising Alumni Relations programs and major special events. Pl.’s Ex. 28 (Non-Classified Staff Job Requisition for Assistant Director Alumni Relations). Plaintiff assured Nota she had the necessary experience to carry out these responsibilities. Defs.’ Ex. D, ¶ 3. During her tenure with the Alumni Relations Office from August 2005 to May 2006, Plaintiff’s performance came under fire. While Plaintiff organized several events with some degree of success, including a URI Day at McCoy Stadium, a Business School Reunion, and a URI Homecoming Road Race, Nota believed that Plaintiff lacked the skills to be effective in her position. Nota’s belief was supported by statements made by other members within the Alumni Relations Office. By way of example, Jennifer Durand Stalb, an Assistant Director of Alumni Relations who mentored Plaintiff in or about August 2005 with regard to the URI Day at McCoy Stadium, expressed her concerns to 3 Nota at the outset of Plaintiff’s employment in the office regarding Plaintiff’s experience in running events and customer etiquette. Defs.’ Ex. D, ¶ 4. Another staff member, Kristal Cardone (Cardone), reported to Nota that during Plaintiff’s first week on the job, Plaintiff asked how to plan an event from start to finish, a basic qualification for the Assistant Director position. Pl.’s Ex. 20, at 2 (Nota memorandum); see also Pl.’s Ex. 28. During the fall 2005 URI Homecoming events in which Plaintiff was designated as the “lead” liaison, Cardone reported to Nota that Plaintiff deflected questions from younger staff members by stating “I don’t know, you guys have done this before, do it the way you always do it.” See Pl.’s Ex. 20, at 2. Beyond the planning of events, Nota also feared that Plaintiff’s lack of professionalism threatened to alienate alumni from whom URI relied on for financial support inasmuch as Plaintiff had arrived late at a sold-out alumni event, checked personal e-mails on an overhead projector in the presence of alumni, and served herself first in a buffet line before paying alumni were served. Defs.’ Ex. D, ¶¶ 10-11.2 From the beginning of her employment in the office, Nota met with Plaintiff three times a week to discuss Plaintiff’s responsibilities, the needs for the office, and to give direction. Id. ¶¶ 6, 20. Notwithstanding these frequent meetings, Nota observed that Plaintiff continued to exhibit an inability to effectively manage her tasks, including administrative projects such as customizing correspondence directed to alumni and 2 Nota relied on other examples of Plaintiff’s inability to effectively and professionally perform the required tasks as the Assistant Director, as reported to her by staff members within the Alumni Relations Office or as she personally observed. See, e.g., Pl.’s Ex. 20; Pl.’s Ex. 6 (draft and undelivered Six-Month Probationary Performance Evaluation Reports for Plaintiff dated Feb. 1, 2006 and Mar. 22, 2006.) Further analysis of such examples is unnecessary in light of the posture of this case, to wit, identifying whether there exists genuine issue of material fact which would preclude the entry of summary judgment. 4 preparing a membership report for the Alumni Association Executive Board. See Pl.’s Ex. 6, at 7-8; Pl.’s Ex. 7 (Feb. 28, 2006 Nota letter to Cugini). Despite numerous meetings with Nota specifically addressing the important membership report, Plaintiff still produced a report with incorrect information, formatting problems, and basic grammatical errors. Pl.’s Ex. 7. Ultimately, Nota issued Plaintiff a formal reprimand on February 28, 2006. Id. Plaintiff contends that her performance as Assistant Director of the Alumni Relations Office was superior and that her work ethic, knowledge and maturity allowed her to produce quality events and complete all other job requirements. Pl.’s Ex. 2, ¶¶ 5-6, 8. She states that she excelled and had a strong overall performance as a new contributor to a new department notwithstanding Nota’s “best efforts to harass [Plaintiff] because of [] age, her constant stream of demeaning negative feedback, her use of [] co-workers to denigrate [Plaintiff’s] performance, and her withholding of training, guidance and basic good faith support.” Id. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff denies that she was provided any training, guidance or orientation by Nota. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9. Plaintiff believes that Nota intended for Cugini to fail because Nota was forced to hire Plaintiff due to her union seniority. See id. ¶ 4. In response to this theory, Nota has acknowledged that two younger employees within the Alumni Relations Office, Cardone and Jesse Kenyon (Kenyon), had also applied for the position of Assistant Director, but further explained that the hiring process ceased as a result of Plaintiff’s exercise of recall rights. Pl.’s Ex. 8, ¶ 2 (Nota’s Response to Requests for Admission). Terri Pierson (Pierson), a manager in the Alumni Relations/Business Office, offered testimony by way of affidavit that she observed Nota treat Plaintiff in a hostile 5 manner not exhibited toward Cardone or Kenyon. See Pl.’s Ex. 5, ¶ 6 (Affidavit of Terri Pierson). According to Pierson, Nota had explained to her that Nota had been forced to hire Plaintiff and “had six months in which to fire her.” Id. ¶ 4. Pierson also stated that Nota asked that Pierson and other colleagues report only negative feedback of Cugini to Nota. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. B Union Involvement According to Plaintiff, she experienced grossly discriminatory remarks and insults from Nota, and Nota treated her differently than younger employees. Pl.’s Ex. 1, at 3 (May 9, 2007 Charge of Discrimination filed with RICHR). A union meeting was held in January 2006 to discuss Plaintiff’s job performance, with PSA grievance chair John Blaney (Blaney) and NEARI union representative Patrick Crowley (Crowley) in attendance, as well as Assistant Vice President of Human Resources Ann Marie Coleman (Coleman), Plaintiff and Nota. At that meeting, Nota presented a list of items she felt reflected Plaintiff’s poor performance. Id at 2-3; see also Pl.’s Ex. 20. According to Plaintiff, during that meeting, “Nota became very aggressive and pounded her fists on the table yelling the age-based condemnation ‘Lisa Cugini doesn’t fit in.3’” Pl.’s Ex. 2, ¶ 12. Calculating that she was on average thirty years older than all the event planners within the Alumni Relations Office hired by Nota, Plaintiff concludes that it was because of her 3 Plaintiff’s own statement of discriminatory acts submitted to the RICHR fails to reference this aggressive behavior.