This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 03/21/2022 at 08:33:01 (UTC).

Blaisdell v. Panasonic Corporation of North America

Case Summary

On January 20, 2022, Diana Blaisdell (“Plaintiff”), represented by Mark L. Mausert and Sean McDowell of the Law Office of Mark Mausert, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Panasonic” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief with damages, attorney’s fees and costs, for allegedly subjecting Plaintiff to sexual harassment and gender discrimination, including retaliatory hostility. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Nevada with Judge Miranda M. Du and Judge Carla Baldwin presiding. 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Plaintiff was employed by defendant from approximately June 19, 2017 through October 11, 2020. [...] Throughout much of plaintiff’s employment she was treated in an adverse and disparate manner by her supervisors, who were in the employ of defendant. This treatment was directed at plaintiff, primarily because she is an older woman. Plaintiff was routinely subject to various instances of disrespect and derision by defendant’s supervisors – who were superior to her in the hierarchy. For instance, defendant’s supervisors directly stated a nexus because the refusal to promote plaintiff and her gender, e.g., at least one male supervisor yelled at plaintiff and thereby informed her, “[y]ou would get farther if you weren’t such a b___h”. Plaintiff was sometimes referred to with even more graphic and gender-oriented terms by defendant’s male management personnel. And, such language was used loudly, i.e., loudly enough to be overheard by various employees. Such conduct was perpetrated openly and loudly, on defendant’s premises, with no apparent fear of adverse consequences, in plaintiff’s presence and in the presence of other Panasonic employees, some of whom were supervised by plaintiff, including supervisors.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Plaintiff was denied promotion because she is an older woman. Plaintiff was qualified to be promoted and, in fact, defendant relied on her skills and knowledge, i.e., defendant instructed plaintiff to train others, who promoted over plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Plaintiff was constructively and wrongfully discharged. That constructive discharge constitutes retaliation, as prohibited by Title VII. A reasonable older woman, similarly situated, would have found the defendant’s work environment, as described herein, to be intolerable. Plaintiff did so experience the work environment. Defendant, despite knowing of the gender-based harassment and gender discrimination which was directed at plaintiff, and which plaintiff endured, failed to enforce its paper policies against such. Those policies constituted promises to plaintiff she would work in an environment free of gender-based harassment and gender-oriented discrimination, and that if such occurred, defendant would promptly and thoroughly investigate such and then remedy any conduct or statements which violated its paper policies in a timely manner. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon these policies/promises, but defendant reneged and failed to follow its own policies.”

The Plaintiff lists three claims for relief. The first claim alleged is for sexual harassment. The second claim alleged is for gender discrimination and the third claim alleged is for retaliation/constructive discharge. The Plaintiff claimed that, Defendant failed to follow its own policies against gender-based harassment and gender oriented discrimination, e.g., defendant failed to timely, thoroughly and investigate, and to implement reasonable remedial action.

In her prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for an award of compensatory damages, economic damages according to proof and punitive damages, along with reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and such other relief, including injunctive relief, as the Court or jury may deem appropriate.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:22-CV-00032

  • Filing Date:

    01/20/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Employment Discrimination

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Miranda M. Du

Referral Judge

Carla Baldwin

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Diana Blaisdell

Defendant

Panasonic Corporation of North America

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Sean McDowell

Mark L. Mausert

Defendant Attorney

Scott M. Mahoney

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0978-6767083) by Diana Blaisdell. Proof of service due by 4/20/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Summons) (Mausert, Mark) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. (Entered: 01/20/2022)

1 #1

Exhibit

1 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #3

Summons

#2

(#2) CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Diana Blaisdell. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Mausert, Mark) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

#4

(#4) SUMMONS ISSUED as to Panasonic Corporation of North America. (DRM) (Entered: 01/21/2022)

#6

(#6) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Diana Blaisdell re #1 Complaint, #4 Summons Issued. All Defendants. (Mausert, Mark) (Entered: 02/01/2022)

#7

(#7) First STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) re #1 Complaint, by Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America. (Mahoney, Scott) (Entered: 02/08/2022)

#8

(#8) ORDER granting ECF No. #7 Stipulation for extension of time (first request). Defendant will have up to and including March 4, 2022 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. #1 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 2/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) (Entered: 02/08/2022)

#9

(#9) ANSWER to #1 Complaint, filed by Panasonic Corporation of North America. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 4/17/2022.(Mahoney, Scott) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. (Entered: 03/03/2022)

#10

(#10) CIVIL STANDING ORDER of Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) (Entered: 03/04/2022)

#11

(#11) ORDER TO FILE CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT - After the meet and confer, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Report by no later than April 18, 2022. See attached PDF Order for specifics. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/4/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) (Entered: 03/04/2022)

#12

(#12) ORDER Scheduling Early Neutral Evaluation Session (Zoom Video Conference). Early Neutral Evaluation set for Tuesday, 4/26/2022 at 9:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 2 by videoconference before Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. ENE Statements due in chambers, Ste. 405, not later than 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, 4/19/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 3/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Entered: 03/08/2022)

#14

(#14) CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Panasonic Corporation of North America that identifies all parties that have an interest in the outcome of this case. Corporate Parent Panasonic Corporation, Other Affiliate Panasonic Holding (Netherlands) B.V. for Panasonic Corporation of North America added. (Mahoney, Scott) (Entered: 03/09/2022)

2 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/09/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#14) CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Panasonic Corporation of North America that identifies all parties that have an interest in the outcome of this case. Corporate Parent Panasonic Corporation, Other Affiliate Panasonic Holding (Netherlands) B.V. for Panasonic Corporation of North America added. (Mahoney, Scott) (Entered: 03/09/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/08/2022

  • Docket(#13) MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 3/8/2022. By Deputy Clerk: Karen Walker.A telephonic Status Conference concerning the Early Neutral Evaluation is set for Wednesday, April 20, 2022, at 9:00 A.M. in Reno Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney.Counsel shall dial 1-888-557-8511, enter the access code 3599743, and enter the security code 42022, approximately five (5) minutes prior to the hearing.At the status conference, counsel shall be prepared to discuss the following matters: (1) Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1); (2) The parties who will attend the ENE; and (3) Any pending motions or other matters which may affect the ENE. The status conference will be vacated if the parties file a joint ENE status report no later than 12:00 P.M. on Tuesday, April 19, 2022, which certifies that the parties have made initial disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1), and that the plaintiff(s) have provided a computation of damages to defendant(s) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). IT IS SO ORDERED.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW) (Entered: 03/08/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/08/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#12) ORDER Scheduling Early Neutral Evaluation Session (Zoom Video Conference). Early Neutral Evaluation set for Tuesday, 4/26/2022 at 9:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 2 by videoconference before Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. ENE Statements due in chambers, Ste. 405, not later than 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, 4/19/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 3/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) (Entered: 03/08/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/04/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#11) ORDER TO FILE CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT - After the meet and confer, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Report by no later than April 18, 2022. See attached PDF Order for specifics. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/4/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) (Entered: 03/04/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/04/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#10) CIVIL STANDING ORDER of Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) (Entered: 03/04/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#9) ANSWER to #1 Complaint, filed by Panasonic Corporation of North America. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 4/17/2022.(Mahoney, Scott) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. (Entered: 03/03/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#8) ORDER granting ECF No. #7 Stipulation for extension of time (first request). Defendant will have up to and including March 4, 2022 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. #1 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 2/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) (Entered: 02/08/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#7) First STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) re #1 Complaint, by Defendant Panasonic Corporation of North America. (Mahoney, Scott) (Entered: 02/08/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/01/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#6) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Diana Blaisdell re #1 Complaint, #4 Summons Issued. All Defendants. (Mausert, Mark) (Entered: 02/01/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/25/2022

  • Docket(#5) CLERK'S NOTICE due to Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb's retirement, this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney for ENE. (no image attached) (LE) (Entered: 01/25/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/21/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#4) SUMMONS ISSUED as to Panasonic Corporation of North America. (DRM) (Entered: 01/21/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/20/2022

  • Docket(#3) STANDING ORDER. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Miranda M. Du. Chief Judge Du's Civil Standing Order is posted on the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada public website and may be accessed directly via this hyperlink: #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PAV) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/20/2022

  • DocketCase randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (Recall) for ENE. (WJ) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/20/2022

  • DocketCase randomly assigned to Chief Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin. (WJ) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#2) CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Diana Blaisdell. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Mausert, Mark) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0978-6767083) by Diana Blaisdell. Proof of service due by 4/20/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Summons) (Mausert, Mark) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. (Entered: 01/20/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Why is this public record being published online?

UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourt’s General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and Public Records Policy. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services.