Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22028
2d Cir.2011Background
- Tepperwien, security officer at Indian Point, alleged sexual harassment by supervisor Messina and claimed constructive discharge, hostile environment, and retaliation under Title VII.
- After discovery, district court dismissed constructive discharge but denied retaliation and hostile environment; trial resulted in mixed verdicts: hostile environment for Entergy, retaliation for Tepperwien, and punitive damages awarded.
- Key incidents include buttocks grabbing (Nov 2004), hair-touching (Aug 2005), multiple fact-finders, a counseling for missing gas mask (Jan 2006) later rescinded, NRC complaint (Jan 2006), and shift change (post-outage).
- Entergy implemented training, memos, and personnel actions (removing Messina from range instructor, counseling rescinded, investigative steps) in response to complaints.
- Tepperwien resigned in Sept 2006 after a series of investigations; he later sought relief for retaliation and punitive damages at trial and on appeal.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the retaliation claim as not objectively material adverse and vacated punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaliation acts were materially adverse under Title VII | Tepperwien contends actions cumulatively deterred complaints. | Entergy argues actions were trivial or isolated and not materially adverse. | No; actions not materially adverse, individually or in aggregate. |
| Whether punitive damages were justified for retaliation | Evidence showed malice or reckless indifference warranting punitive damages. | Entergy acted in good faith to comply with Title VII; punitive damages not warranted. | Punitive damages not warranted; district court’s ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (material adversity standard for retaliation claims; context matters)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (broader interpretation of anti-retaliation provisions)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (punitive damages and good-faith defenses)
- Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, S. Ct. (2011) (Title VII retaliation breadth; social impact context)
- Weeks v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 273 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001) (criticism as not adverse action; training/discipline context)