Full opinion text
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION BUCHMEYER, Chief Judge. This case involves the severe and pervasive sexual harassment of the plaintiff, Therese Scribner, by some of the top officers and executives of the defendant, Waffle House, Inc. It also involves the blatant lies, an egregious attempt to suborn perjury, and the reward of witnesses who gave false deposition and trial testimony, by the Waffle House officers, executives, supervisors and other witnesses discussed below. Therese Scribner was employed by Waffle House for three and one-half years as a personnel recruiter. Because Scribner was a woman, during this entire period she was paid less than males who had the same duties and responsibilities that she did for Waffle House. In addition, Therese Scribner was sexually harassed by three male supervisors — who,. contrary to their perjured testimony during depositions and at trial — subjected Scribner to continued, abusive, and severe sexual harassment by conduct such as this: ... asking her, “have you ever been eaten by a man with ice in his mouth?” and “do you want to sit on my face?” ... telling her, “if you ever fucked me, you would never be happy with another man" and “I’d like to eat the lining out of your pussy.” ... calling her “little Ms. Big Tits” and “our Dolly Parton, the girl with the big ... smile. ” ... telling recruits being interviewed for jobs with Waffle House, “Your signing bonus will be a weekend in a hotel with Therese ... in a bikini ” ... grabbing her blouse, pulling it out, and leering, “It was driving me crazy to see what those were. ” ... sticking a Polaroid camera between her legs, and under her dress, and taking a picture of her crotch. ... telling other Waffle House employees that “Therese got so hot and wet that you could throw her panties against the wall and they would stick. ” ... et cetera. Although other Waffle House executives and officers actually witnessed some of the perverse sexual harassment of Therese Scribner by these three male executives and supervisors, they never reprimanded the harasses or sanctioned them for their egregious misconduct. Instead, one of them, Area Manager Steve Wright, was later promoted to become a Senior Vice-President of Waffle House; and the other two harassers, Regional Manager Steve Oswald and Division Manager Tim Mercer, also received promotions or other rewards from Waffle House. With the backdrop of this corporate environment, it was not too surprising that other Waffle House executives and supervisors joined in the sexual harassment of Therese Scribner. For example, when Division Manager Tim Mercer stuck the Polaroid between Therese’s legs, and snapped a picture under her dress, Area Vice-President Larry Cannon was present; although he witnessed this reprehensible conduct, Cannon did not take any action against Mercer. Therese Scribner repeatedly pleaded with Steve Wright, Steve Oswald, and Tim Mercer to stop their repugnant conduct — because, despite it, Therese was doing a very good job, and she wanted and needed to continue her employment at Waffle House. Scribner threatened to report Wright and Oswald if they did not stop the sexual harassment, but it continued. Then, Scribner complained to other Waffle House executives about the sexual harassment, but “nothing ever happened.” Finally, Scribner was driven to complain to Donald “Skip” Nau, the new Waffle House “Vice-President of People,” shortly after Nau had become her supervisor. Skip Nau documented some of Therese Scribner’s complaints of sexual harassment, and he reported them directly to Joe Rogers, Jr., the President, CEO and 78% owner of Waffle House. At the next Executive Committee meeting (held shortly after Joe Rogers received Nau’s report), Rogers asked Steve Wright about Scribner’s complaints; however, Wright flatly denied that he had ever engaged in any improper conduct towards Therese Scribner — and the Waffle House President, CEO and major stockholder did nothing about Nau’s report or the plaintiffs complaints of sexual harassment. Then, as the direct result of her sexual harassment complaints, Therese Scribner was promptly terminated — less than four months after she had first complained to Skip Nau. Supposedly, Waffle House terminated the plaintiff because she had been a “poor employee” and a poor recruiter — a preposterous claim, particularly since Scribner had never received a single complaint, warning or reprimand about her performance; since she had received regular pay increases during her entire three and one-half years at Waffle House; and since — about one year before her termination — Scribner had been persuaded not to quit her job at Waffle House by Steve Wright and by John Robertson, a Waffle House Vice-President. After she filed this sexual harassment-retaliatory discharge suit against Waffle House, Therese Scribner started her own personnel recruiting company, the plaintiff Resource Recruiters, Inc. Two years later, Waffle House maliciously and tortiously interfered with a significant recruiting contract that Resource Recruiters had with Grandes, Inc. In doing so, Waffle House executives defamed Scribner and Resource Recruiters, Inc. by lying about why Scribner had been terminated by Waffle House. These are Therese Scribner’s legal claims against Waffle House: sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221k, § 5.01; unequal pay in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 d(l) and 215; and common law claims of breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with the Resource Recruiters— Grand/s contract. With the exception of the alleged breach of contract, all of Scribner’s claims are meritorious, and she is entitled to recover the actual and punitive damages that are discussed below. The Resource Recruiters common law claims against Waffle House are these: tortious interference with the Grandy’s recruiting contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; these claims are also valid, and Resource is entitled to the recovery of the actual and punitive damages discussed below. This opinion will first discuss the applicable law concerning a sexual harassment “hostile work environment” claim. Next, it will state this Court’s findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the non-jury trial. Then, it will discuss the facts established by the credible testimony and exhibits — including (i) the severe and pervasive sexual harassment that was committed by some Waffle House officers, executives and supervisors (and ignored by others), (ii) the unsuccessful attempt by a Waffle House executive to suborn perjury, and (iii) the successful attempt by other executives to bribe two trial witnesses. Finally, the opinion will discuss the law and the credible evidence supporting the award of actual damages and punitive damages on each of the claims of Therese Scribner and Resource Recruiters. Because of the length of this opinion — due primarily to the number of valid legal claims made by the plaintiffs and to the incredible extent of the severe, unrelenting sexual harassment and the Waffle House lies in this case — it will begin, for convenience, with an outline of the various matters to be covered, Page I. The Law Applicable To Sexual Harassment Claims 881 II. The Credibility Of The Witnesses 884 III. The Facts 885 A. The Plaintiffs Employment At Waffle House 885 B. The Plaintiffs Performance 889 C. The Severe, Pervasive Sexual Harassment Of The Plaintiff 891 D. Waffle House Does Not Want The Plaintiff To Quit 905 E. The Plaintiff Again Complains About The Sexual Harassment — And, As The Result, She Is Terminated 906 F. The Fabricated “Reasons” Concocted To “Justify” The Plaintiffs Termination 912 1. Lie Number One: Waffle House Terminated The Plaintiff Because Of Her Poor Performance 912 2. Lie Number Two: That’s Why The Lady Is A Tramp 915 3. Lie Number Three: No One Has Ever Violated the Waffle Houses Sexual Harassment Policy 916 G. After The Plaintiffs Termination 918 1. The Higher Paid male Replacement 918 2. The Plaintiffs Complaints To The TCHR Result In More Lies By Waffle House 918 3. The Plaintiff Starts Her Own Recruiting Business 920 4. The Fictitious “Raid” Upon Waffle House 921 5. Waffle House Threats Cause Grandy’s To Terminate Its Contract With Resource Recruiters 922 H. The Attempt To Suborn Perjury 924 IV. Liability And Actual Damages 925 A. Willful Discrimination In Pay 925 B. Sexual Harassment 929 Page C. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 932 D. Intentional Interference With The Contract Between Resource Recruiters and Grandy’s 933 E. Defamation 934 F. Breach Of Contract 936 G. Summary Of Actual Damages 936 V. Punitive Damage 937 A. The Applicable Law 937 B. Punitive Damages: Sexual Harassment 940 C. Punitive Damages: Defamation And Tortious Interference 944 VI. Summary Of Actual And Punitive Damages 946 VII. Conclusion 947 I. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS The recent Fifth Circuit decision in Farpella—Crosby v. Horizon Health Care, 97 F.3d 803 (5th Cir.1996), (Higginbotham, Wiener and Benavides) contains an excellent, succinct analysis of the law applicable to the Title VII sexual harassment claims of Therese Scribner. In that ease, the plaintiff Farpella-Crosby began work at a Horizon Health Care nursing home in June 1993. In February 1994, Jose Blanco, Horizon’s director of nursing, began to sexually harass the plaintiff; his harassing conduct included: ... frequent comments attributing Farpel-la-Crosb/s large number of children to her proclivity to engage in sexual activity; ... repeated comments that “he knew what she liked to do” because she had seven children and that she “must not have a television”; ... “joked” before a group at the nursing home that “Farpella-Crosby doesn’t know how to use condoms”; ... inquired frequently about Farpella-Crosby’s sexual activity; and ... often questioned Farpella-Crosby and a female co-worker about “where they had been on the night before (while off duty), whether they had taken men home, and whether they ‘got any. ’ ” In addition, on one occasion, after Farpel-la-Crosby had lunch in her office with a boyfriend, Blanco said, “when you open the door [to the office], the smell offish just hits you in the face. You shouldn’t be doing that kind of thing at work.” Another employee heard “Blanco making this comment and told him that he should stop.” The plaintiff and the female co-worker both testified that Jose Blanco “made similar comments two or three times a week” — and the plaintiff added that Blanco’s sexual comments “were so frequent that she could not possibly remember each instance.” Blanco also “threatened Farpella-Crosby with her job on numerous occasions when she asked him to stop making these ‘sexual comments. ’ ” In his testimony, Blanco “essentially admitted that he did ask Farpella-Crosby about her personal life,” but claimed that he did so “because he believed the lack of sleep resulting from sexual activity could affect her work performance.” With respect to the “the smell of fish just hits you in the face” remark, Blanco did not actually deny making this comment, but claimed “that he did not recall it.” The Parpella-Crosby opinion holds that, in order to establish a “hostile work environment” sexual harassment claim, a plaintiff must prove that: ... (1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based upon sex; (4) the harassment complained of affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment (ie., that the sexual harassment was so pervasive or severe as to alter her conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment); and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action ... To be actionable, the challenged conduct must create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive ... (i) severe and pervasive harassment Farpella-Crosby then discusses (i) the elements of liability in a sexual harassment case based on verbal conduct, and (ii) the requirements for the imposition of liability against the employer for “the employee’s offensive conduct.” To be actionable under Title VII, the sexual harassment must be: ... sufficiently pervasive or severe to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Sexually discriminatory verbal intimidation, ridicule, and insults may be sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment that violates Title VII_But the mere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee is not alone sufficient to support Title VII liability. The Fifth Circuit held that Parpella-Cros-by’s evidence did support the jury’s finding that the sexual harassment by her supervisor (Jose Blanco) had been so pervasive or severe that it affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment. The Court noted the: ... substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Blanco’s comments and questions were sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. Both Far-pella-Crosby and her coworker testified that Blanco inquired about Farpella-Cros-by\s sexual activity or made comments similarly offensive two or three times a week. The record reflects that Blanco made many egregious comments to Far-pella-Crosby, some in front of co-workers, that in combination with his frequent inquisition about her sexual activity were sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment. (ii) the employer knew or should have known of the sexual harassment Of course, an “employer is liable for the discriminatory acts of an employee only if it knew or should have known of the employee’s offensive conduct and failed to take steps to repudiate that conduct and eliminate the hostile environment.” Although it felt this was “undoubtedly a close question” in Farpella-Crosby, the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff had met her burden of proving that Horizon Health Care “knew or should have known” that she was being subjected to a hostile work environment-primarily with evidence of Farpella-Crosby’s complaints to two of the company’s “human resource directors,” Belinda Callejo and Gigi Hopper. Specifically, Farpella-Crosby testified that she frequently talked to Belinda Callejo about “her problems” with Jose Blanco, telling the human resource director: [Tjhat Jose Blanco ‘was making comments into [her] personal life’ and that he made ‘personal comments’ that she did not like ... Although she testified that she did not give Callejo any specific examples, she did tell Callejo that she found Blanco’s comments to be offensive. Callejo agreed that Farpella-Crosby had told her of job-related problems, but denied that Farpel-la-Crosby had ever mentioned sexual harassment. Callejo also testified, however, that an employee need not say explicitly ‘I am being sexually harassed’, before Callejo would take action as human resources director. Callejo said that she would consider it sufficient notice if Far-pella-Crosby had said that ‘things are being said to me.’ Farpella-Crosby also testified that, after Callejo was replaced as human resource director by Gigi Hopper, she had also complained to Hopper “that Blanco was ‘making comments into [her] personal life’ and that she considered the comments to be,offensive or unwelcome.’ ” And, Farpella-Crosby testified that she “intentionally failed to report” specific instances of sexual harassment in a statement she gave to Hopper “because she ‘had told Belinda [Callejo]’ and thought somebody would do something about what I had told Belinda.’ ” In addition, the Farpella-Crosby opinion discusses another factor “relevant to whether [the employer] knew or should have known of [the sexual harassment]: whether the conduct ‘took place in public, under the eye of co-workers or supervisors’ ” With respect to Farpella-Crosby, “on several occasions, Blanco made offensive comments in the presence of [the plaintiffs] co-worker Robert Martinez and Humberto Arriola, assistant director of nursing.” (iii) the employer’s failure to take prompt remedial action Finally, in Farpella-Crosby, the Fifth Circuit rejected the claim that Horizon’s “remedial action” had been taken promptly or that it was adequate. Substantial evidence also supports a finding that Horizon failed to take prompt remedial action. Callejo’s uniform response to Farpella-Crosby’s complaints was ‘Hang in there. Something’s got to be done. ’ Nothing, however, was done. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Farpella-Crosby, she endured nearly six months of Blanco’s abusive behavior before Horizon took any action. There is no evidence that Callejo performed any investigation of Farpella Crosby’s complaints or that she took any steps to remedy the situation. This was not prompt remedial action. This summary of the law applicable to sexual harassment claims, as explained by the Fifth Circuit in Farpella-Crosby, sets the framework for the following discussion of the facts concerning the severe, pervasive and disgusting sexual harassment of Therese Scribner. II. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES These are the Court’s credibility determinations concerning the witnesses who testified at the non-jury trial in this case. 1. The plaintiff: THERESE SCRIBNER was a very, very credible witness. Indeed, during her three days of testimony, Therese was one of the most truthful persons who has ever testified before this Court. 2. The sexual harassers: STEVE WRIGHT and STEVE OSWALD, the first two Waffle House executives who sexually harassed Therese Scribner, are both liars — indeed, OSWALD is one of the two worst liars that has ever testified before this Court. Both WRIGHT and OSWALD knowingly gave false testimony during their depositions; they reluctantly admitted some of these lies at trial, but they told new falsehoods and repeated some of their deposition lies. TIM MERCER, who also sexually harassed Therese Scribner, was the second of the two worst liars who have ever appeared before this Court (along with OSWALD). Indeed, as discussed below, MERCER was “rewarded” — with the bribe of a waffle House franchise restaurant in Colorado — for his perjured deposition testimony. TIM MERCER’s testimony, and that of his wife, SHERRY MERCER, are discredited almost entirely by this Court. 3. The attempt to suborn perjury: As discussed below, two Waffle House executives — DAVE THEOBOLD and LARRY CANNON — attempted to suborn perjury by intimidating DAVID SMITH, a former Waffle House employee, shortly before the trial in this ease. The Court discredits the testimony and the repeated lies of THEOBOLD and CANNON. It credits the entire testimony given by DAVID SMITH, a very credible witness. 4. The Waffle House executives who witnessed acts of sexual harassment: Other Waffle House officers and supervisors witnessed some of the sexual harassment of THERESE SCRIBNER by STEVE WRIGHT, STEVE OSWALD, TIM MERCER and others. These include LARRY CANNON, LIB JULIAN, SKIP NAU, JOHN ROBERTSON and DAVE THEO-BOLD. The Court discounts either all or major portions of their testimony, as specifically noted in this opinion. 5. The witnesses for the plaintiff: The witnesses who testified on behalf of THERESE SCRIBNER included GLENDA ADAMS, MATTHEW BULLOCK, LISA CHAMBLESS, DAVID COLEMAN, FRAN DUBUISSON, MARGARET DAILEY, TONY FISH, DAN GAY, RODNEY Le-BRAUN, MICHAEL ROBARE, JOE THOMAS, BOB WESSON and STEVE WILLIAMS. The Court credits their testimony because it was true. 6. The other Waffle House witnesses: The Waffle House witnesses also included DAVID ADAMS, OLENE MAE BROWNING, RICK BROWNING, TONY FISH, LISA MERCER (Tim Mercer’s first wife), DELINDA PEREZ and others. Some of these witnesses lied, and some were mistaken; the Court credits their testimony only to the extent specified in this opinion. 7. The Waffle House President: As discussed below, JOE ROGERS, JR., the President, CEO and majority (78%) stockholder of Waffle House, was present when one of STEVE WRIGHT’s first acts of sexual harassment took place. Despite this, ROGERS took no action against WRIGHT, and he later promoted WRIGHT, who became one of the top Waffle House executives at the company headquarters in Atlanta. ROGERS also gave false testimony about several matters. The Court, therefore, discounts the testimony of JOE ROGERS, JR. insofar as it conflicts with the findings of fact in this opinion. III. THE FACTS Based upon the evidence presented at trial and upon the credibility determinations just made, these are the Court’s findings of fact, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. A. The Plaintiffs Employment At Waffle House 1. The Plaintiff Therese Scribner was 42 at the time of trial. Married since 1974, Therese and her husband have two children. After she attended Junior college in Mississippi, Scribner worked for several different employers, first in Mississippi and then in Dallas, usually as a secretary or an administrative assistant. Among her employers was McDonald’s, where she worked for about one and one-half years in the personnel department. In 1983, Scribner became a personnel recruiter for Diversified Human Resources Group (“Diversified”) in Dallas, and she remained there for about three and one-half years. Scribner was very successful in personnel recruiting for Diversified. She received a number of awards and recognitions, including “Rookie of the Year”; she was the top biller at Diversified for two years; and she was earning over $60,000 a year. Scribner was certified by the National Association of Personnel Consultants, and she received numerous production-based awards from that Association and from the Texas Association of Personnel Consultants. Despite her success, Scribner decided to leave Diversified in April of 1986. She was “burned out” and felt the job was taking too much time away from her family. For the next few months, Scribner did not work. 2. The Defendant Waffle House Waffle House, Inc. was started in 1955 by two men, Joe Rogers, Sr. and Tom Forkner. Waffle House is a chain of short order restaurants that are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Its corporate offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1973, Joe Rogers, Jr. — the son of one of the founders — became President and CEO of Waffle House (two years after he had obtained a Masters Degree at Harvard Business School). Then, in 1978, Joe Rogers, Jr. became the controlling stockholder when he acquired 78% of Waffle House stock. At the time of trial, Waffle House owned and operated some 465 restaurants in five marketing areas: Metro East (eastern Georgia), Metro West (western Georgia), the Eastern Area (North and South Carolina), the Gulf Coast Area (some of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico), and the Western Area (Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona and -parts of Louisiana). In addition to its own restaurants, Waffle House also had about 470 “franchise restaurants” in its five marketing areas and elsewhere. These are the “management positions” at Waffle House and the number of restaurants — also called “units” and “stores” in trial testimony — for which each level of “management” is responsible: Unit Manager 1 restaurant District Manager 2-4 restaurants Division Manager 12-15 restaurants Regional Manager 25-30 restaurants Area Manager & Assistant Vice-President up to 120 restaurants Each Area Manager-Assistant Vice-President reports to the Vice-President of Operations in Atlanta, who in turn reports to the President & CEO of Waffle House, Joe Rogers. As the top executive and 78% owner of Waffle House, Rogers personally approves every hiring, firing and compensation decision involving his company. From its beginning, Waffle House has been directed exclusively by white males. Corporate management has never included any females, African-Americans, Hispanics, or other minorities. The testimony at trial established that: (i) perhaps 12-15 of Waffle House’s 140 District Managers and two of its 45 Division Managers were females, but that none of its 20 Regional Managers, or its Area Managers or its officers in Atlanta were female; and (ii) that perhaps 17-18 of Waffle House’s 140 District Managers and two of its 45 Division Managers were black, but that none of its Regional Managers, Area Managers or its Atlanta officers were black. 3. The Plaintiffs Hiring By Waffle House Therese Scribner and her family lived in Grapevine, a suburb north of Dallas. One of her Mends and neighbors was Mary Wright. After Mary learned that Therese had left her personnel recruiting job with Diversified, she mentioned that her husband, Steve Wright,— who was the Western Area Manager and Assistant Vice-President of Waffle House— was looking for a recruiter in Dallas. Shortly after this, the Wrights invited the Scribners to have dinner with them and another couple. That evening (in May or June of 1986), Steve Wright told Therese that Waffle House did have an opening for a recruiter, and they discussed her experience and Waffle House’s recruiting needs. Therese gave Steve Wright a copy of her resume and Wright told her that the recruiting job would pay from “$30,000 to $40,-000 or $50,000 a year.” Following this dinner, Therese Scribner had two meetings at Waffle House with Joe Renfro, a Waffle House executive (Assistant Vice-President, Training) in the Western Area office in Dallas. Renfro told Therese about the company’s history, it’s structure and their training program. Later, Steve Wright asked Therese Scribner to come to his home for another meeting. There, Steve Wright offered Therese the vacant recruiting job, at a salary of $28,000 per year, with a potential bonus of $8,000 (with this bonus being based on three factors: whether she met hiring quotas, what number of her recruiting hires were “retained,” and her “communication skills”). la response to this offer by Wright, Therese Scribner said: “You told me the salary was a lot higher” (i.e., from $30,000 to $40,000 or $50,000 a year). Steve Wright replied to Therese with these two blatant lies: (i) that she had misunderstood him, and that the starting salary was only $28,-000, hut that “she could be making as much as $i0-$50,000 within six months”; and (ii) that she would be receiving the same compensation as Rick Seal, the Waffle House recruiter that Scribner was replacing. After Wright told Therese that her compensation would be “the same as Rick Seal’s,” he then said that this offer was “nonnegotiable.” Therese Scribner accepted Wright’s offer. Wright gave Therese “a couple of boxes of Rick Seal’s files” for her to review. And, on July 29, 1986, the plaintiff started work for Waffle House, at a base salary of $28,000 per year, with a maximum yearly bonus of $8,000. Within a month or so, Therese Scribner learned from documents in Rick Seal’s files “that Seal had actually been receiving a base salary of $38,000, with a potential bonus of $10,000 — i.e., $12,000 more in potential compensation (salary plus bonus) than the $36,000 maximum that the plaintiff could receive.” Therese was so angry that she immediately confronted Steve Wright and asked: ‘Why am I making less than Rick Seal? Why did you hire me?” Steve Wright grinned and replied: “I hired you because I saw you in a halter top and shorts. You’re making less because you’re not a bread winner. You don’t need to make as much as a man. Your’s is second income.” Although Therese Scribner was very upset, she thought she would like the recruiting job with Waffle House — so, despite these first lies and the first inappropriate sexual comments by Steve Wright, Therese decided to continue to work at Waffle House. 4. The Plaintiff’s Supervisors For the rest of 1986, Therese Scribner reported directly to Steve Wright, the Western Area Manager and Assistant Vice-President. From January 1987 through September or early October of 1989, Scribner’s supervision was divided between Steve Wright and John Robertson, the Vice-President, Operations Control, in the Atlanta home office. During this period, Robertson was in charge of “administrative issues” concerning Therese Scribner (such as compensation), while Steve Wright set her performance quotas and was responsible for her day-to-day supervision. In September (or early October) of 1989, Steve Wright was promoted to the Waffle House headquarters in Atlanta. For the next several weeks, the Area Vice-President, Larry Cannon was Scribner’s supervisor. Then, on October 1, 1989, Donald “Skip” Nau, a Vice-President in Atlanta, became head of the newly-created “People Department” of Waffle House. All recruiting functions were transferred to this new department, and Skip Nau was Therese Scribner’s supervisor until March 1,1990, when she was abruptly and unjustly terminated. 5. The Plaintiff’s Responsibilities Therese Scribner’s primary duty was to recruit new trainees for the Unit Manager positions (one restaurant) in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and, to a lesser degree, in other parts of the Waffle House Western Area. Her other responsibilities included an Hourly Employee Training Coordinator program, the preparation and completion of forms concerning the initial interviews of recruits and exit interviews for departing employees, and planning and running special Western Area functions, such as the Top Operator “Top Ops” Awards Banquet and the Santa’s Sleigh holiday program. Scribner received her initial training from Steve Wright. There was no structured training program; instead, after Scribner had reviewed the “Rick Seal files,” Wright took her to a few Waffle House restaurants to meet the Unit Managers and to learn the manner in which Waffle House wanted its employees to operate. Next, Wright took Scribner to some competitive restaurants— e.g., Hardy’s, Taco Bell, Grandy’s, etc. — to teach her “how to try to find people who might be interested in working” for Waffle House as Unit Managers, and to leave business cards with any interested prospects. Wright also instructed Scribner on the use of “word of mouth” — i.e., references from Waffle House employees or others to find Unit Manager recruits. Steve Wright was specific about the “targets” that Therese Scribner should try to find for Waffle House: young men in the late 20’s, who were ex-football players or “other athletes,” and who would be “movers and shakers” as Unit Managers. Wright also told the 'plaintiff that he “pretty much wanted white males.” Wright said that he wanted Scribner to try to “upgrade the quality of their Unit Managers and above,” and he told her that Waffle House “needed promotable employees as well as some who would be content with the lower jobs” (i.e., Unit Managers). Wright also instructed Scribner about how she was to conduct the interviews and the initial screening of the applicants. Steve Wright specifically told Therese Scribner— and he repeated these instructions several times — that she had no authority to hire anyone, and that the hiring would be done only by the District, Division and Regional Managers and by Wright, the Western Area Manager and Assistant Vice-President. In summary, the credible trial evidence clearly established: (i) that Therese Scribner was given specific instructions by Steve Wright with respect to how, and when, and whom she could recruit; (ii) that there were no differences between Scribner’s authority and responsibilities and those of her predecessor, Rick Seal; and (iii) that Therese Scribner had no authority to hire new employees or to affect the operations of the Waffle House restaurants in any way. B. The Plaintiff’s Performance Therese Scribner was an outstanding employee for Waffle House! She was intelligent, organized, innovative and very personable. In addition to doing an excellent job as a recruiter, Scribner also rapidly assumed other responsibilities, including: (i) Proper Records —Therese established procedures and developed new forms for hiring new employees (e.g., reference checks, credit checks, rating sheets, a recruiting log, employment contracts, exit interviews, etc.); (ii) Training — Therese instituted a training program for hourly employees at the restaurants (using a “training coordinator” to assist the Unit Manager), which was designed to reduce turnover; (iii) Monthly Newsletter — Therese started a monthly newsletter for the Waffle House restaurants to help improve the morale of the unit employees. As mentioned above, Scribner’s responsibilities also included (iv) Santa’s Sleigh, a Christmas project in which toys were delivered by supervisors to several hundred children of the hourly employees of the Waffle House restaurants in the Dallas-Fort Worth Area; and (v) the “Top-Op” Awards, a dinner-dance at which the “Top Operator Awards” were given to the most outstanding Waffle House employees. Therese Scribner learned, very soon after her initial training by Steve Wright, just how incredibly demanding, confining, and exhausting the working conditions were for the Unit Managers. From the trial testimony of Scribner and other credible witnesses, this is a fair summary of the job of a Waffle House Unit Manager (1 restaurant): The Unit Manager at each Waffle House restaurant is responsible for everything. From 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (the First Shift), he cooks all the meals. Then, he does office work on the Second Shift, and usually leaves the restaurant between 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. unless his replacement, the assistant cook, has not shown up for work. Once the replacement cook arrives, the Unit Manager gets some time off, but he must return during the Third Shift to lock up the money and leave supplies and some cash for the night shift. However, if the assistant cook does not show up, then the Unit Manager has to “work around the clock” unless his District Manager “agrees to cover for him.” Because of these harsh working conditions, morale at the Unit Manager level is extremely poor (to say the very least). As Therese Scribner soon learned, the long hours and the demanding conditions were incredibly difficult on family and personal life; and, understandably, they result in a very high turnover at the Unit Manager level. Scribner began documenting these and other problems — i.e., lack of management support, inconsistent treatment of Unit Managers by their supervisors, etc. — in her exit interviews of Unit Managers who quit. Therese was well liked by the unit employees, but she had no authority to change either the demanding working conditions of the Unit Managers or the other things that were causing the high employee turnover at the Waffle House restaurants. In her interviews with prospective Unit Managers, Therese Scribner “tried to cover both the pros and the cons” of this entry level management position at Waffle House. The advantages included a fast advancement track, with excellent compensation and much better working conditions “as one rose up the management ladder,” from Unit Manager to District and Division Manager. The disadvantages included the long hours, sometimes 60 to 70 to 80 hours a week; work on every holiday; and, as Therese told her recruits, “the hardest job you will ever have.” Steve Wright, after observing one of Therese’s interviews, told her it was “an effective interview,” and said “Great. Just great.” After her initial interviews, Scribner brought any person “she felt was qualified” to the attention of the District, Division and Regional Managers — who then conducted second interviews of the recruits, and who made all hiring decisions. As discussed above, and as was made very clear to her by Steve Wright, Therese Scribner did not have the authority to hire anyone or to offer any recruit a job with Waffle House. Therese Scribner worked 40-50 hours each week. Although the number of interviews she conducted each month with new recruits varied, she probably averaged around 30 per month. Therese tried other methods of recruiting besides the “cold calls” to other restaurant chains and “networking” (referrals from current employees). These included “job fairs”; an “All Star Recruiting Team” composed of all of the District Managers and Scribner; contacts with personnel agencies (Wright was opposed to this); and advertisements in newspapers (Wright didn’t like these either). The Court specifically credits the testimony of Therese Scribner that her recruiting efforts were “easily 85%” in the “cold-calling” at rival restaurants and “networking” with Waffle House employees and that, at most, 15% of her recruiting was done by personnel agencies and newspaper advertisements. No one ever told Therese Scribner that there were any problems with her interviewing style. To the contrary, Steve Wright said “it was excellent”; and, Larry Cannon, her supervisor for a two-month period in 1989, gave Therese “high marks” for her interviewing methods. Nor did anyone — not Steve Wright, not Skip Nau, and not a single other supervisor — ever tell Therese Scribner that she was not doing a good job as a recruiter. Therese received only one written performance evaluation, the one by Larry Cannon on January 26, 1988, and it was a very positive one. Therese normally met, or came close to meeting, all hiring quotas set by her supervisors. And, of course, she received consistent, periodic increases in her pay. Therese was recognized by Waffle House for her outstanding work in creating the training program for unit hourly employees. In October 1988, she was presented an “award of excellence” for her work in recruiting and training. And, in early 1989, when they learned that Therese was considering quitting her job, both Steve Wright and John Robertson encouraged Scribner and persuaded her to stay with Waffle House. Not one supervisor ever told Therese Scribner, “You are doing a poor job.” However, the fact that Therese performed her recruiting and other responsibilities in an exceptional, dedicated and loyal manner is quite remarkable, indeed — because during this entire period, she was being subjected to pervasive, demeaning and severe sexual harassment, first by Steve Wright, next by Steve Oswald, and then by Tim Mercer. C. The Severe, Pervasive Sexual Harassment Of The Plaintiff Therese Scribner was subjected to unrelenting and unwelcome sexual harassment by Waffle House officers, executives and supervisors. This sexual harassment was pervasive, it was severe. The sex-based comments made to her — and about hei — were gross, lecherous and disgusting. This sexual harassment of the plaintiff was, without question, so severe and pervasive that it altered “the conditions of her employment” and created “an abusive working environment.” The first person who sexually harassed Therese Scribner was Steve Wright, the Western Area Manager and Assistant Vice-President (who, despite his conduct, was later promoted to the position of Senior Vice-President of Waffle House). The next harassing supervisor, whose misconduct was even more egregious than Wright’s, was Steve Oswald. Oswald was Scribner’s Regional Manager (who, despite his repugnant behavior, was promoted to the position of Assistant Vice-President and Area Manager, Western Region). On cross-examination and in questioning by the Court, both Steve Wright and Steve Oswald admitted that they had made various sexual comments, to Therese Scribner — and Wright also admitted that this conduct was in violation of the Waffle House sexual harassment policy. The next supervisor who sexually harassed the plaintiff was Tim Mercer. Mercer was first a District Manager, then a Division Manager, and then a District Manager again after demotion, all in the Western Area. His sexual harassment of Therese Scribner was even more demeaning and severe than that of Steve Oswald. And, finally, the other Waffle House officers, executives and supervisors who are discussed below either witnessed — or participated in — some of the acts of sexual harassment of the plaintiff. Therese Scribner recorded some (but not all) of these acts of sexual harassment in her 1987 day-timer and in her office calender. Although these records are not a complete account (her day-timers for other years were lost) or a comprehensive list (she noted only some of the harassment), they are very credible records that illustrate the nature of the sex-based comments and conduct to which the plaintiff was subjected. Several months after her termination, Scribner prepared a chronology of some more (but still not all) of the acts of sexual harassment; this chronology {Exhibit 166) — which lists the date and substance of, and the persons involved in, the various acts of sexual harassment — is also very accurate. Then, about three years after her termination by Waffle House, Scribner drafted a list of the acts of sexual harassment by Steve Oswald (Exhibit 167); this chronology, which was verified by the testimony of Scribner and other witnesses, is also very credible evidence, too. 1. The Beginning: Sexual Harassment Of The Plaintiff By Steve Wright Within two or three months after Therese Scribner was hired by Steve Wright, Therese learned that she was being paid $12,000 a year less than the male recruiter she had replaced (Rick Seal). She angrily confronted Steve Wright about this; and, he replied: “I hired you because I saw you in a halter top and shoyts. You’re making less because you’re not a bread winner. You don’t need to make as much as a man. Your’s is second income.” This sexist remark by Steve Wright in the fall of 1986 was followed by an increasing level of sexual harassment by Wright. This pattern of sexual harassment, which quickly became much more severe and pervasive, was clearly established at trial by the very credible testimony of Therese Scribner and the other honest witnesses discussed below. It was confirmed by the repeated impeachment of Steve Wright. In addition, some of Therese’s sexual harassment by Wright was actually witnessed by other Waffle House officers, executives and supervisors. “She’s our Dolly Parton” In the summer of 1987, Waffle House held a “Top Op” party at Bear Creek in Dallas to honor the “Top Operators” in the Western Area. Therese Scribner was in charge of this function, and she made all the arrangements for it. When Steve Wright introduced Therese Scribner to the crowd, he made this leering reference to the size of Scribner’s breasts: “Therese Scribner is our ‘Dolly Parton.’ The girl with the big ... (pause) ... smile!” Lib Julian, the Waffle House Senior Executive Vice-President, Operations — from the Waffle House headquarters in Atlanta — was present at this “Top Op” banquet. He did not reprimand Steve Wright, or say anything at all to him, about this inappropriate “Dolly Parton” comment. And, Lib Julian did not report this incident to anyone. Later that night, Mary Wright (Steve’s wife) apologized to Therese Scribner for the conduct of her husband towards Therese who was very shocked and upset by this “Dolly Parton” remark. After a day or so, Therese did complain to Steve Wright, telling him that this comment about the size of her breasts offended her very much. In response, Wright only “shrugged it off, like it was no big deal.” “a weekend with Therese in a bikini” At a working meeting in Dallas at the Sheraton Hotel in August 1987 — where new recruits were being interviewed by Wright, Scribner and others — Steve Wright announced to the prospective Waffle House employees: “Whoever agrees to join Waffle House will get a ‘sign-on bonus. ’ Therese will be your hostess in a hotel for a weekend ... wearing a bikini.” Again, Therese was shocked by this embarrassing, public comment. Later, she angrily confronted Steve Wright, telling him how humiliated it made her feel — and also telling Wright that one of the recruits had even asked her later, “Are you really going to be wearing a bikini?” Wright just ignored these complaints by Therese. Joe Rogers, the President, CEO and 78% owner of Waffle House was present at this Sheraton Hotel meeting. Although he witnessed the “sign-on bonus, weekend with Therese” statement by Steve Wright — as well as Scribner’s embarrassment — he said nothing at all to Wright about his improper conduct. If Joe Rogers had taken some prompt corrective action then — as, indeed, he should have — the subsequent sexual harassment of Therese Scribner by Steve Wright and other Waffle House officers, executives and supervisors probably would have been deterred. Instead, Rogers did nothing, and the sexual harassment of Therese not only continued, it escalated. Steve Wright repeated this “sign-on bonus, weekend with Therese in a bikini” remark to new recruits on many other occasions. Each time, Therese Scribner was upset and angry. Each time, she complained to Wright, telling him (for example) that ‘Tour conduct is unprofessional.” In response, Wright would just laugh and tell Therese something like, “It’s no big deal, just a clever comment.” other sexual comments by Wright Steve Wright made numerous other remarks about Therese Scribner’s breasts. For example, in front of other Waffle House employees (and Therese), he stated that “Therese’s big boobs help her in recruiting. It’s an unfair advantage for her.” In October 1988, Steve Wright also told Therese, “That’s a really nice outfit on a really nice body.” And, in December 1988, Wright — in the presence of Lib Julian (Senior Vice-President, Operations), at the Marriott Courtyard hotel in Dallas — “grabbed Theres-es’ blouse, pulled it out, looked doum at her breasts, and smirked: It was driving me crazy to see what those were.” Lib Julian did not reproach Wright about this sexually harassing conduct, nor did he report it to anyone else at Waffle House. Therese Scribner gave other examples of the severe, pervasive acts of sexual harassment by Steve Wright. These included the following: ... before other Waffle House managers, Wright asked Therese, “Are you on the rag?” (and he repeated this numerous times). ... in February 1988, on a business trip to Phoenix, Wright suggested to Therese: “Let’s go out and paint the town. Your husband is far enough away. ” ... in June 1989, when Wright saw Therese in a black dress, he said: “I’d like to jump your bones.” ... in May 1989, when they learned that one of the Waffle House Unit Managers had been charged with raping a waitress, Wright told Therese that “he thought it was comical” and “he just laughed about it.” In May of 1988, at a Waffle House meeting in the Sheraton Hotel in Dallas, Steve Wright actually told the Division Managers that they “should support” Therese Scribner and “show more respect for her.” Later, Therese told Wright that the Division Managers “were following your example.” In recording this incident, the plaintiff noted that Wright “said he was just being complimentary.” And, Wright’s sexual harassment continued. For example, in March 1989, at a meeting of Division and District Managers at the Red Lobster Inn in Dallas, Wright again made the comment “that [Therese’s] big boobs assist [her] in [her] recruiting efforts.” These are only examples. Indeed, as Therese Scribner testified, they were by no means all of the perverse acts of sexual harassment by Steve Wright. On numerous occasions, Therese told Wright that she would report him if he did not stop the harassment — but Wright’s conduct toward her never changed. However, in August of 1989, Steve Wright was promoted and transferred to the Waffle House headquarters in Atlanta. From then on, Wright had fewer direct contacts with Therese Scribner — although, as discussed below, his control over her employment at Waffle House did not cease. Despite the sexual remarks he made about Therese Scribner in the presence of other Waffle House supervisors, employees, and recruits — her “big smile,” her “big boobs,” etc. — Steve Wright even testified that he had never been present when Waffle House supervisors “were engaging in guy talk” about Therese and other female employees. This was false, absolutely false! In addition, in response to the Court’s question about whether Wright had ever witnessed a violation of the company’s Sexual Harassment Policy, Wright lied again: “There are things that were said, I’m sure, among the guys in the restaurants. I feel positive about that. But first hand information, no.” 2. The Sexual Harassment of The Plaintiff By Steve Oswald The sexual harassment of Therese Scribner by Steve Wright was bad enough, but her sexual harassment by Steve Oswald— who had witnessed Wright’s misconduct towards Therese on many occasions — became even worse. Steve Oswald remained as Western Area Regional Manager after Wright’s promotion to Atlanta. Later, Oswald was promoted to the position of Western Area Manager and Assistant Vice-President. Steve Oswald constantly repeated Wright’s “sign-on bonus, weekend with Therese in a bikini” comment while interviewing new recruits with Scribner. He made incessant remarks about her breasts, almost routinely referring to Therese as “little Ms. Big Tits.” He literally bombarded Therese with vulgar remarks about her sex life, his sexual prowess, etc. Some of Steve Oswald’s harassing conduct is recorded in Exhibit 167, a list prepared by Therese Scribner for her attorneys after this suit was filed. It reads: “Comments Made By Steve Oswald To Therese Scribner * Stacked well enough to be matching bookends. * Referred to me as ‘little Ms. big tits.’ * Lots of filthy jokes using heavy four letter words. * Asked me several times if I wanted to sit on his face. * Asked about size of my husband’s penis —said his own was ‘bigger than life,’ ‘a whopper,’ said if I ever fucked him I would never be happy mth another man. * Made references to ‘Mississippi women’ being good fucks and sucks. * Asked me if I ever sucked chrome off a bumper or .sucked a golf ball through a straw — bet I could. * Tallied about kinky sex with rubber tubing and ropes. * Asked if I had ever been eaten by a man with ice in his mouth. * Constantly (every conversation) interjected filthy comments during a business conversation. * Told three applicants during interviews that if they came on board with Waffle House there was a ‘sign-on’ bonus — a weekend with Therese. * Asked me if I ever see my feet. * After meeting Bob for the first time he asked if I ever get tired of being on top— he would be happy to oblige me. * Said he would like to ‘eat the lining out of my pussy. ’ ” Therese Scribner was asked when each one of these things took place. Her responses placed many of them at events where other Waffle House executives, supervisors and employees were present — specifically (1) at a company banquet (matching bookends), (2) “said on a regular basis” (little Ms. big tits), (3) “happened regularly” (lots of filthy jokes), (4) the first time, “after an Area Meeting at the Sheraton” {want to sit on my face?), (5) “can’t remember” (size of husband’s penis), (6) “at an Area Meeting” (Mississippi women are good fucks and sucks), (7) at an Arlington restaurant (ever sucked chrome off a bumper?), (8) on a trip to Shreveport with Tim Mercer (kinky sex talk), (9) at a Waffle House restaurant on Jupiter Road (ever been eaten by a man with ice in his mouth?), (10) “constantly” (filthy comments), (11) “many times” (weekend with Therese in a bikini), (12) “on occasion” (ever see your feet?), (13) in a car with Larry Cannon (do you ever get tired of being on top?), and (14) at a restaurant where Scribner “was helping behind the counter” (I’d like to eat the lining out of your pussy). Steve Oswald lied repeatedly, both at his deposition and in his trial testimony, about these and his other acts of sexual harassment of Therese Scribner. For example, in his deposition, this was Oswald’s answer to a question by the plaintiffs’ attorney: Q. During your tenure as an employee of Waffle House, have there ever been any allegations of a sexual harassment or sexual misconduct made against you by female Waffle House employees? A. No. This was a lie. At trial, Scribner’s attorney began his examination of Oswald by reading the very same question from the deposition; however, this time Oswald gave a different answer: Q. During your tenure as an employee of Waffle House, have there ever been any allegations of a sexual harassment or sexual misconduct made against you by female Waffle House employees? A. Yes. During his deposition, Steve Oswald lied when he denied making any sex-based comments to Therese Scribner, including the statements listed on Exhibit 167. But at trial, Oswald admitted to the plaintiffs’ attorney that he had, in fact, made the “sign-on bonus, weekend with Therese in a bikini” statement; and he, admitted to making the “matching bookend” comment. However, in his deposition and initially in his trial testimony, Oswald flatly denied that any of the other entries on Exhibit 167 were true. This, of course, was another blatant Oswald lie. During questioning by the Court, Steve Oswald finally admitted that he had actually said that the plaintiff had “big tits,” that he had told “lots of filthy jokes using heavy four-letter words,” and that he “could have” made some of the other remarks on the plaintiffs list “in a joking manner.” But each time he was impeached, Oswald would try to minimize his admissions and his conduct, as shown by the following examples. “little Ms. big tits” Q. You never referred to her [the plaintiff] — not just to her, but to anybody else, that she had big tits? A. You know, I didn’t refer to her in person as that. You know, somebody would have asked me and, you know, describe Terez and I would say she’s got big breasts ... Q. You probably said “big tits?” A. I could have, yes. (Later) Q. You’re positive that it (saying the plaintiff had big tits) only happened one time? A. I wouldn’t have — if it came up, it came up one time. I don’t generally talk that way. Q. May not have ever happened? A. I’m sure it happened. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. Q. But you’re sure it only happened one time? A. I’m sure. Q. But you can’t tell me why you think it only happened one time? A. No, sir. The “sign-on bonus: a weekend with Therese in a bikini” lies Still lying, Steve Oswald swore that there were only two occasions when he made the “your sign-on bonus is a weekend in a hotel with Therese wearing a bikini” comment to recruits. Then, Oswald proceeded to tell additional lies: Q. You [made that remark because you] were trying to put the applicants at ease and that (sign-on bonus comment) was just a joke? A. Yes, sir. Q. [Therese would] laugh? A. She laughed. Everybody laughed. It was a joke. Q. But ... [if] you thought that was a good interviewing technique, “just to make the person feel at ease?” ... if it was, if it worked, why didn’t you do it more than just two times? A. Because after a while I’d gotten so— you know, with Terez, Terez and my relationship had soured quite a bit because I didn’t — I just quite frankly didn’t think she was doing the job that she was hired to do.... “filthy jokes and four-letter words” Another Steve Oswald he was that, although he and Therese Scribner told “lots of filthy jokes” with “lots of four-letter words,” there was no use of “real heavy” profanity. Q. Okay. What kind of four-letter words? A. Just a joke. You know, I wouldn’t say they were real heavy four-letter words.... Q. She [the plaintiff] would use four-letter words? A. Yes, sir. Q. Hell, damn? A. Yes, sir. Q. Fuck, shit? A. Yes, sir. told filthy jokes, but never said “tits” Ever a paragon of virtue, Steve Oswald gave this bizarre explanation for his incredible testimony that he and the plaintiff would tell jokes and use profanity, but they would never, ever joke about “her breasts.” Q. So you probably said she had ‘big tits’? A. Yes, sir. Q. But not to her directly? A. No, sir. No, sir. Q. Well, if y’all were joking around telling filthy jokes and she was brushing up against you [with her breasts], why wouldn’t you say to her ... if it’s second nature to you to use the word “tits,” why didn’t you say, you know, “Therese, get those big tits off of me?” A. I wouldn’t have said that. I would have said, “Terez, please watch those things. ” Talking to the guys I might say something like that, but I wouldn’t say that to a woman. That’s just not things I would say. Therese Scribner was also very credible in describing Steve Oswald’s repeated, unwelcome physical contact with her — e.g., backing into her and “accidentally” bumping her breasts; tickling her under her arms; rubbing his legs against her thighs; etc. Oswald lied about these physical contacts he had with Therese, too. The first two times that Steve Oswald made the “sign-on bonus/weekend with Therese in a bikini” remark to a recruit, Scribner angrily complained to him. However, Oswald just “thought it was humorous.” On the third time (October 12, 1989), Therese Scribner was so upset that she warned Oswald: “If you don’t stop, I will report you to Larry Cannon and to the EEOC.” Oswald was not concerned by her complaint, and he replied: “Hey, I just think it’s funny.” Therese made other angry, bitter complaints to Steve Oswald about his conduct; however, just as in the case of Steve Wright, Oswald’s conduct never changed. In summary, Therese Scribner’s testimony about the incredibly severe, pervasive and demeaning sexual harassment of her by Steve Oswald was very, very credible. During her direct examination, when her attorney was asking questions about each one of the entries on Exhibit 167, Therese began crying — obviously because she was remembering the shame, the humiliation, and the degradation she felt because of Oswald’s abuse. Seeing this, Scribner’s attorney quickly asked her one general question about all the remaining statements on Exhibit 167, and moved to other topics. At this point, the Court’s contemporaneous trial notes contain these remarks: “PL crying while answering. Very credible. Humiliated. Embarrassed. Angry. Upset. So tired of it. Confused. Couldn’t quit. Needed job.” 3. The Sexual Harassment of the Plaintiff by Tim Mercer — and the Bribery of the Mercers With the Western Area Manager and Assistant Vice-President (Steve Wright) and the Regional Manager (Steve Oswald) setting such sterling examples — by their open and pervasive sexual harassment of Therese Scribner in the presence of anyone (whether Waffle House officers, executives, supervisors, employees, or recruits) — it was not surprising that Wright and Oswald were soon joined by other Waffle House managers, including Tim Mercer. Mercer was the only witness who told more lies at trial about Therese Scribner— and about his sexual harassment of her — as Steve Oswald did in his perjured testimony. Tim Mercer started with Waffle House as a Unit Manager (one restaurant). Within a year, Mercer was promoted, becoming a District Manager (2-4 restaurants). He was a Division Manager (12-15 restaurants) for a while, but was demoted in December 1990 and again became a District Manager. “the plaintiff got so hot and wet” that her panties would “stick” against the wall The very beginning of Tim Mercer’s testimony at trial was his admission to the plaintiffs attorney that, contrary to his deposition lies, he “may” have made a statement like this about Therese Scribner: “She got so hot and wet that you could throw her panties against the wall and they would stick. ” The truth, however, did not come easily to Tim Mercer. After his sworn deposition denial was followed by his sworn trial admission of this repulsive comment, Mercer “explained” that “he may have said