Viglianco v. Athenian Assisted Living, Ltd, 1:15-cv-00232

Background

Marie K. Viglianco worked as an LPN at Athenian Assisted Living (April–Dec 2013) on an as-needed (PRN) basis and became pregnant in April 2013.
Viglianco alleges maintenance director Ron Livingston made sexual comments to her (e.g., calling her "unbelievably beautiful" and commenting on her hair) and that she observed similar conduct toward another employee, Marie Barhouma.
Viglianco says she reported at least one comment to her supervisor, Sue Durichko; defendants dispute what was reported and what Durichko said in response.
Viglianco contends she was passed over for a full-time position and, after taking maternity leave in late December 2013, was not rescheduled for shifts when she sought to return in early 2014.
Procedurally, plaintiff brought claims under Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112, negligent hiring/retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and retaliation; both parties moved for summary judgment (Oct. 1, 2015 opinion).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pregnancy discrimination — failure to hire full-time	Viglianco says she was qualified and was passed over for full-time work because of pregnancy	Defendants say no evidence Durichko knew of pregnancy when hiring occurred; timing uncertain	Grant for defendants — no nexus shown between pregnancy and hiring decision
Pregnancy discrimination — failure to reschedule after leave	Viglianco says she had an expectation of regular PRN shifts and was not rescheduled because of pregnancy/complaints	Defendants say schedules were set, staffing needs eliminated, and plaintiff failed to follow-up	Deny defendants' SJ motion — genuine dispute on timing and pretext; claim survives
Sex discrimination — hostile work environment	Viglianco cites multiple comments and observed misconduct toward Barhouma as creating hostile environment	Defendants call comments innocuous/isolated and deny a pervasive hostile environment	Grant for defendants — incidents not severe or pervasive enough; plaintiff's MSJ denied
Negligent retention	Viglianco says employer knew (or should have) of Livingston's misconduct and failed to act after reports	Defendants argue reports were not sufficiently severe to trigger employer liability	Deny both parties' SJ motions — factual disputes on knowledge, adequacy of response, and causation
Retaliation	Viglianco claims she complained about Livingston and then was not scheduled/constructively terminated	Defendants assert legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for non-scheduling	Deny defendants' SJ motion — triable issues on causation and motive remain
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)	Viglianco alleges Livingston and employer conduct caused severe emotional harm	Defendants argue conduct, even if true, is not "outrageous" as required	Grant for defendants — IIED claim fails as a matter of law
Individual liability of Edmond Gates	Plaintiff asserts Gates supervised Livingston and can be liable for negligent retention; no evidence re: hiring/retaliation decisions	Defendants note Durichko handled hiring/termination; Gates had supervisory role over Livingston	Partial: grant as to pregnancy and retaliation claims against Gates; deny as to negligent retention claim against Gates

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for discrimination cases without direct evidence)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment standard)
Killion v. KeHE Distributors, LLC, 761 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. summary judgment principles)
Michael v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp., 496 F.3d 584 (adverse employment action analysis)
Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506 (employer liability and severity/pervasiveness analysis)
Prebilich-Holland v. Gaylord Entertainment Co., 297 F.3d 438 (employer knowledge of pregnancy requirement)