\n<\/p>\n
\n[F]or the entire time Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, Defendant had a policy that the highest-ranked Retail Sales Consultant for the prior month was instructed by his or her supervisor \u2026 to tie the lowest-ranked sales consultant \u2026 to a chair in the back office and thereafter assault that person by violently smashing a cream pie in their face.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Compl<\/a>., Figueroa v. Comcast Cable Communications Mgt. LLC<\/em> (Conn. Super. Ct. filed July 9, 2026) (via Ars Technica<\/a>).<\/p>\n
Mr. Figueroa alleges that on February 27, 2026, he resigned from his position of Retail Sales Consultant at a Comcast store in Plainville, Connecticut, because he was no longer comfortable with the company\u2019s policy of motivating consultants by threatening them with cream pies as described above. While you may assume, as I did, that this means Mr. Figueroa must have been the lowest-ranked sales consultant in January, that was apparently not the case. <\/p>\n
Rather, he alleges that on February 25, he was present for that month\u2019s application of the policy. According to Plaintiff, he \u201cwitnessed and videotaped a co-worker, Ty, being tied up and assaulted [with a cream pie] by a co-worker in the back room of the Comcast store.\u201d He alleges the store\u2019s manager and other co-workers were also \u201cpresent for and videotaped this assault [with a cream pie]\u2026.\u201d The unidentified co-worker \u201cwho struck Ty in the face [with a cream pie] while Ty was tied up had better sales results than Ty and, therefore, [the manager] ordered him to assault his poorer performing co-worker [with a cream pie] in front of his peers.\u201d<\/p>\n
Plaintiff also alleges that on another occasion an employee who \u201creceived a poor survey score from a customer\u201d similarly got a pie in the face. Two other co-workers showed him a video of this cream-pie assault. These are allegedly the two pie assaults identified in the image above, which purports to be of a whiteboard in the store\u2019s back room. (What the other slightly happier faces indicate is not clear.)<\/p>\n
As a result, Plaintiff called the regional manager on February 27 and told her the company\u2019s \u201cshocking\u201d cream-pie-assault policy \u201cmade him feel uncomfortable and caused him concern as to whether he could continue\u201d with Comcast and remain subject to \u201cthese violent, [cream-filled], management-created, and management-enforced policies and practices.\u201d She asked him to send her a text message memorializing his concerns, which he did. But when she \u201cnever responded,\u201d he resigned (the same day).<\/p>\n
Plaintiff thus contends he was \u201crepeatedly exposed to a violent and hostile work environment\u201d during \u201cthe entire time he was employed\u201d by Comcast. (He was hired on February 2, so \u201cthe entire time he was employed\u201d by Comcast was 25 days. But still.) Because any \u201cobjective, reasonable person in Plaintiff\u2019s position would have felt compelled to resign, the complaint says, he was unfairly \u201cconstructively discharged,\u201d so the company must pay.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m no expert in employment law, but as usual I do have a few comments anyway.<\/p>\n
First, Plaintiff does not allege discrimination, unless low-ranking sales consultants are a protected class in Connecticut (and maybe they are). In many states, an employer can generally fire somebody for any non-discriminatory reason, so that may be one problem here.<\/p>\n
Second, Plaintiff is suing Comcast, but I don\u2019t see any allegations that Comcast knew<\/em> this was happening (if it did), much less that cream-pie assaults are corporate policy. The store manager was allegedly ordering the pie strikes, but Plaintiff doesn\u2019t allege that even the regional manager knew until he told her on February 27 (and he quit the same day). He alleges Comcast should <\/em>have known, but I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s enough if only the store manager was involved.<\/p>\n
Third, while hitting someone in the face with a cream pie could<\/em> certainly be harassment or at least an element of a harassing or discriminatory policy, this is still a cream pie we\u2019re talking about. If he alleged they hit low-ranking sales consultants in the face with a bat, we wouldn\u2019t be having this conversation (well, maybe we would). But with a cream pie it depends on context (and probably also the fluffiness of the pie.) There\u2019s no allegation employees were threatened with termination if they refused to participate, for example. I also note the complaint says the second of the two incidents involved not a salesperson but the \u201cassistant sales manager,\u201d which seems to undercut Plaintiff\u2019s characterization. On the other hand, the face depicted on the image above being hit with a pie is frowning, so maybe that\u2019s bad for Comcast.<\/p>\n
Finally, I haven\u2019t researched this extensively, but there appear to be no cases in which getting a cream pie in the face served, without more, as the basis for a viable claim. My search (\u201chostile work environment and pie \/s face\u201d) did yield eight cases, but let\u2019s just say there was a lot more going on there than pie-throwing.<\/p>\n
And in an amazing coincidence (well, maybe not), one of those is a case I\u2019ve already covered. See <\/em>\u201cTip of the Day: Spanking, Mocking, Diapering All Frowned Upon in the Workplace<\/a>\u201d (Apr. 25, 2006). There, a company was also accused of a problematic \u201cmotivational\u201d program, and it involved pie-throwing, but again, lots more going on there. That case went to trial, and I noted that at the time of writing the jury had awarded half a million dollars to an employee who was spanked three times with a yard sign. I can now report that the jury also awarded $1 million in punitives. But that verdict was later reversed due to errors in the jury instructions and sent back for a new trial. See Orlando v. Alarm One<\/em>, 2008 WL 115833 (Cal. App. Jan. 14, 2008). It appears to have settled after that. <\/p>\n
So, while I wouldn\u2019t recommend pie-throwing as a motivational practice, I see little reason to think Comcast has much to worry about. It could<\/em> turn out this was a hostile work environment, but it pales in comparison to the hostility of other work environments we have considered. See<\/em> Orlando<\/em>, supra<\/em>; see especially, e.g.<\/em>, \u201cHas Your Boss Ever Pooped in Your Lunchbox?<\/a>\u201d (Mar. 7, 2016).<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n