Penn v. Citizens Telecom Services Co.
999 F. Supp. 2d 888
S.D.W. Va2014Background
- Plaintiff Laura Penn worked as a sales consultant at Citizens Telecom’s Charleston, WV call center and briefly reported to supervisor Cory Kidder.
- Kidder allegedly made a single crude sexual remark about Penn’s breasts to coworkers; Penn was not present but was later told and found the comment humiliating.
- Penn requested and received a transfer to a different supervisor; Kidder was later fired and another employee (Kimberly Whittington) had earlier complained about Kidder, though that conduct occurred before Penn worked for him.
- Penn filed EEOC administrative charges, then sued in federal court asserting: Title VII hostile work environment, a WVHRA hostile work environment claim, a West Virginia "insulting words" claim (W. Va. Code § 55‑7‑2), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Citizens Telecom moved for summary judgment; Penn’s summary‑judgment response contained no record citations or admissible evidence opposing the motion. The court granted summary judgment to Citizens Telecom on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conduct amounted to a Title VII hostile‑work‑environment | Penn relied on the single comment and alleged downstream effects to show severe or pervasive harassment | Citizens Telecom argued one isolated remark (and remote prior complaint by another employee) cannot meet the severe or pervasive standard | Court: Title VII claim fails — one offensive comment (not witnessed by Penn) is not objectively severe or pervasive |
| Whether the WV Human Rights Act hostile‑work‑environment claim survives | Penn argued state law parallels federal law and effects were far‑reaching | Citizens Telecom argued state standard likewise requires severe or pervasive conduct and Penn produced no evidence | Court: WVHRA claim fails for same reasons as Title VII |
| Whether Kidder’s remark is actionable under W. Va. § 55‑7‑2 (insulting words) | Penn claimed the words are "insulting" and tend to breach the peace | Citizens Telecom argued the remark is not a vituperative epithet or traditional slur covered by the statute | Court: § 55‑7‑2 claim fails — remark not within the statute’s scope |
| Whether IIED claim is supported by extreme/outrageous conduct | Penn alleged outrageous conduct and follow‑up mistreatment (but offered no evidentiary support) | Citizens Telecom argued the conduct was not atrocious or outrageous as required by WV law | Court: IIED claim fails — conduct insufficiently extreme as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment factors; subjective/objective test)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer liability and severe/pervasive standard)
- Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. en banc) (subjective and objective components of hostile environment)
- Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. EEOC, 521 F.3d 306 (4th Cir.) (high bar for severe or pervasive harassment)
- Okoli v. City of Baltimore, 648 F.3d 216 (4th Cir.) (contrast where repeated, severe supervisor conduct supported a claim)
- Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99 (W. Va. 1995) (WVHRA hostile environment and employer liability principles)