Delia v. Verizon Communications Inc.
656 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2011Background
- DeLia, an Idearc/Verizon employee in Middleton, MA for ~16 years, sues Smallwood and Verizon entities alleging harassment and related claims under Title VII and MA Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
- She alleges a September 12, 2005 incident where Smallwood allegedly screamed at her and she left work, fearing for her safety; she did not return to the office.
- Idearc conducted an internal investigation finding unprofessional conduct by Smallwood (not sexual harassment) and issued a final warning; Smallwood was later terminated for unrelated conduct.
- DeLia subsequently began disability benefits (short-term, then long-term) and was approved for Social Security Disability benefits, with both premised on being unable to work since Sept. 12, 2005.
- In November 2005, DeLia filed a MCAD charge; Verizon removed and moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment in Verizon’s favor; the First Circuit affirmed.
- The central issue is whether Verizon is DeLia’s employer under federal and state law; if not, most claims fail as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Verizon was DeLia’s employer under Title VII and ch. 151B | DeLia contends Verizon controlled terms/conditions. | Verizon did not employ or control DeLia; Idearc did. | Verizon not an employer under both statutes. |
| If not employer, whether retaliation and ADA claims survive | Claims arise from alleged harassment and failure to accommodate. | No employer-employee relationship, so claims fail. | Claims fail for lack of employer status. |
| Whether claims for infliction of emotional distress and safe-work-environment are preserved/viable | Requests consideration of emotional distress theories. | Waived/insufficient development on appeal. | Claims waived; not preserved for appellate review. |
| Whether the Code of Business Conduct formed a binding contract and breached | Code created contractual rights and Verizon breached. | Even if contract exists, breach by Idearc, not Verizon. | Breach claim fails against Verizon as contract party. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alberty-Velez v. Corporation de Puerto Rico para La Difusion Publica, 361 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (employer/employee status defined by common-law agency principles)
- Modern Cont./Obayashi v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. 96 (Mass. 2005) (employment status analysis for ch. 151B includes common-law factors)
- Lopez v. Massachusetts, 588 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2009) (common-law control focus for employer status under Title VII)
- Camacho v. P.R. Ports Auth., 369 F.3d 570 (1st Cir. 2004) (control/relationship evidence used to define employment)
- Dykes v. DePuy, Inc., 140 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1998) (requirement to weigh all incidents collectively in employment relationship)
- Darden v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 503 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court 1992) (employer/employee status defined with reference to control)
- Doe v. Purity Supreme, Inc., 422 Mass. 563 (Mass. 1996) (workers' compensation carve-out affecting contract analysis)