Opinion
No. 07-4720-cv.
March 4, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court entered September 27, 2007, is AFFIRMED.
For Plaintiff-Appellant: NINA TRESTER-CESTARO, Danbury, Connecticut.
For Defendant-Appellee: JOEL L. FINGER, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, New York.
Plaintiff Jane Consolie appeals from the judgment of the district court entered September 27, 2007, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing her claims of slander, libel, breach of implied contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.
Having reviewed Consolie's arguments on appeal, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in granting Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment. We address two of those arguments here. First, with regard to Consolie's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, she has raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of Richard Noll's conduct, which included, inter alia, (1) saying that the Vision Center should be closed and replaced instead by a pet store, (2) denying Consolie's request to display Vision Center Christmas merchandise by replying that he did not having shelving space coming out of his "ass," (3) generally "embarrassing and harassing" Consolie for taking leave over the Christmas holiday, and (4) calling Consolie a part-time manager, was "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 815 A.2d 119, 126 (Conn. 2003).
Second, with regard to Consolie's retaliation claim, in order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that "(1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) her employer was aware of this activity; (3) the employer took adverse employment action against her; and (4) a causal connection exists between the alleged adverse action and the protected activity." Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597, 608 (2d Cir. 2006). Even if Consolie's complaint to Michelle Sullivan regarding Wal-Mart's former practice of holding annual performance reviews in hotel rooms with beds could be considered a protected activity, Consolie has raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a causal connection between that complaint and Consolie's termination in March 2004. Similarly, Consolie has raised no genuine issue of material fact as to whether her complaints regarding Richard Noll could constitute a protected activity, as none of her complaints implicated any conduct that could be considered discrimination on the basis of sex or any other protected class.
We have considered all of Consolie's other arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.