274 F. Supp. 3d 22
D.R.I.2017Background
- Gina Mosunic, hired Oct 2012 as a salaried account manager for Joseph’s Gourmet (owned by Nestlé), covered RI/CT/MA and reported remotely to Timothy Healy.
- Mosunic informed Healy she was pregnant on March 25, 2013; she complained to HR on March 27 and again on May 7, 2013, alleging changed treatment after the announcement.
- In May 2013 Healy wrote a three-page memorandum recommending Mosunic’s suspension, citing performance issues dating back to Nov 2012; most criticisms lack contemporaneous documentation predating the pregnancy announcement.
- Mosunic was suspended (paid), her accounts were handled by Healy and others, and she later took disability leave for childbirth and resigned Dec 30, 2013; Joseph’s Gourmet was sold the next day.
- Mosunic sued under FEPA and RICRA for gender-based disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation; Nestlé moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender-based disparate treatment | Mosunic: suspension followed pregnancy announcement; pre-announcement feedback positive and no prior written discipline, so suspension was pretext | Nestlé: Healy’s memorandum showed legitimate, non-discriminatory performance-based reasons for suspension | Denied summary judgment — genuine disputes of material fact on pretext and causation require jury determination |
| Retaliation for complaining to HR | Mosunic: she engaged in protected complaints to HR and was suspended shortly after second complaint, showing causal connection | Nestlé: suspension was for non-retaliatory performance reasons set out in the memorandum | Denied summary judgment — close temporal proximity plus other evidence supports prima facie case and pretext questions for jury |
| Hostile work environment (gender-based) | Mosunic: alleged inappropriate workplace behavior following pregnancy announcement | Nestlé: alleged conduct was not gender-based harassment | Granted summary judgment for Nestlé — no evidence the conduct was related to gender |
| Adverse action defined as paid suspension | Mosunic: paid suspension is adverse because it can harm record, advancement, experience | Nestlé: paid suspension pending investigation is not necessarily adverse (citing other circuits) | Court adopts view that paid suspension can be adverse and treats suspension as adverse for purposes of claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Kosereis v. Rhode Island, 331 F.3d 207 (prima facie burden described as small)
- Pagán-Colón v. Walgreens of San Patricio, Inc., 697 F.3d 1 (temporal proximity relevant to pretext)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity generally insufficient unless very close)
- Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (one-month gap can be sufficiently close for causation)
- Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 741 F.3d 310 (hostile work environment requires gender-based harassment)
- Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060 (paid administrative leave can be an adverse employment action)