Employment Practices

James A. Rothschild and Michael J. Carlson obtain summary judgment in Salgado v. Rite Aid Corporation 
Partners James A. Rothschild and Michael J. Carlson received summary judgment in the case of John L. Salgado v. Rite Aid Corporation.  The case was a discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which Mr. Salgado alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment and terminated because he is Puerto Rican and, further, that Rite Aid’s termination was in retaliation for his reporting of the hostile work environment.  Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to Rite Aid Corporation.

In November, 2002, Mr. Salgado was hired as a security guard by Rite Aid in Camden, New Jersey.  After transferring to a second Camden store, Mr. Salgado alleged that an incident occurred when an assistant store manager made inappropriate jokes about Camden’s former mayor, who was Puerto Rican, and told Mr. Salgado that Puerto Ricans think they are better than other people.  Mr. Salgado then complained to his store manager, who spoke with the assistant manager about her comments and let Mr. Salgado call his security supervisor.  The security supervisor came to the store the next day and, after speaking to the store manager, assured Mr. Salgado that there would be no further problems.  Subsequently, Mr. Salgado failed an examination required for all security officers and was terminated as required by Rite Aid policy. 

The Court granted summary judgment to Rite Aid because the alleged prejudicial comments, which occurred on a single day, were insufficient to create a hostile work environment and because Rite Aid responded promptly to Mr. Salgado’s complaints.  The Court found that Mr. Salgado could not prevail on his wrongful termination claims since, having failed a required test, he could not demonstrate he was qualified to retain his job or otherwise demonstrate that the termination was due to discrimination or retaliation for having complained of harassment.

James A. Rothschild and Michael J. Carlson Receive a Defense Verdict in Newsome v. Penske
After an eight day trial and more than a day of jury deliberation, Partners James A. Rothschild and Michael J. Carlson received a defense verdict in the case of Renee Newsome v. Penske Truck Leasing Corporation. Bringing suit in the United States District Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ms. Newsome alleged that she had been sexually harassed and subjected to retaliation while employed at Penske’s facility in Capitol Heights, Maryland. As a result of the harassment and retaliation, Ms. Newsome contended that she was forced to resign her employment, resulting in her constructive discharge.

In February, 2002, Ms. Newsome was hired by Penske as a clerk. She testified that she was sexually harassed for the entirety of her two years and four months of employment with Penske by at least nine co-workers and supervisors. She claimed that these employees subjected her to unwanted vulgar comments and repeatedly touched her in inappropriate ways. Ms. Newsome alleged that she reported her problems to several supervisors, all of whom failed to take action. She asserted that the harassment got worse toward the end of her employment and that as she continued to complain, the company started enforcing its attendance policy more strictly, giving her several written corrective actions, including a suspension. Even after Penske commenced an investigation into Ms. Newsome’s complaints, Ms. Newsome insisted that the harassment continued, compelling her to resign her position.

Penske provided evidence that Ms. Newsome’s allegations of harassment were fabricated in response to Penske’s decision to enforce its attendance policy. Penske also presented evidence to satisfy the good faith defense, by showing that it had a sexual harassment policy and had promptly investigated Ms. Newsome’s complaints of harassment.

After hearing testimony from twenty-three witnesses, the jury concluded that none of Ms. Newsome’s co-workers or supervisors had sexually harassed her, that she was not constructively discharged, and that Penske did not retaliate against her by disciplining her for her excessive absences.

Ashley Sennett v. Rite Aid.
Partners James A. Rothschild and Michael J. Carlson received summary judgment in the United States District Court for Maryland in the case of Ashley Sennett v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. The case, which was removed to federal court, involved allegations of wage discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, as well as common law claims for breach of contract and fraud against Rite Aid and three management employees.

Ms. Perry, a Rite Aid pharmacy technician, alleged that she was promised a certain wage increase upon completion of a Rite Aid certification course. After she successfully completed the course, Ms. Perry was provided with a wage increase that was half of what she expected. Judge Catherine Blake entered summary judgment in favor of all Defendants as Ms. Perry could provide no evidence that she was discriminated against based on her gender and was unable to demonstrate that she had been promised the pay increase to which she claimed to be entitled by anyone with authority to do so.