Facts
- Maryann Favale worked for about 21 years as an administrative assistant at Saint Joseph’s School, affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport.
- Sister Bernice Stobierski became interim principal in late 2002 and full-time principal in mid-2003.
- Favale alleged that between December 2002 and June 2003 Stobierski engaged in severe and repeated workplace sexual harassment, including inappropriate touching, sexually suggestive comments, lewd behavior, and requests for physical affection.
- Favale reported the alleged conduct to the Diocese and sued the Diocese for, among other claims, sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and supervision.
- During Stobierski’s deposition, plaintiff sought testimony and documents about Stobierski’s past psychological/psychiatric conditions and any anger-management treatment.
- The Diocese objected on relevance and confidentiality/privilege grounds; Favale moved to compel answers and production of related records.
Issues
- Whether information about Stobierski’s prior psychological/psychiatric or anger-management treatment was relevant and discoverable under Rule 26(b) to support negligent hiring and negligent supervision claims against the Diocese.
- Whether, given the governing notice/propensity requirement for negligent hiring/supervision, the requested discovery had a sufficient connection to the alleged sexual-harassment misconduct.
Decision
- The court denied the motion to compel deposition testimony and document production concerning Stobierski’s psychological/psychiatric history and anger-management treatment.
- The court effectively granted protection from this line of discovery because the requested material was not relevant to the negligent hiring and negligent supervision claims as asserted.
Legal Principles
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery is broad but limited to nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense; a movant must show relevance to obtain an order compelling discovery.
- Under Connecticut law, negligent hiring and negligent supervision require that the employer had notice of the employee’s propensity for the specific type of misconduct that caused the plaintiff’s harm.
- General allegations of “emotional issues,” psychological treatment, or anger-management therapy do not, without more, establish a propensity for workplace sexual harassment or employer notice of such a propensity.
- Courts may deny intrusive discovery into sensitive medical or psychiatric matters where the probative connection to the claims is speculative or attenuated.
Conclusion
The court refused to compel discovery into an alleged harasser’s mental-health and anger-management history because negligent hiring and supervision turned on employer notice of a propensity for the particular misconduct alleged—sexual harassment—and the requested information did not plausibly bear on that notice or propensity.