Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa

Decision Date07 October 2003
Docket NumberNo. C02-3038-MWB.,C02-3038-MWB.
Citation285 F.Supp.2d 1180
PartiesJames DUNBAR, Plaintiff, v. PEPSI-COLA GENERAL BOTTLERS OF IOWA, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Jackie D. Armstrong, Brown, Kinsey & Funkhouse, PLC, Mason City, IA, Lynne Jaben Bratcher, Bratcher & Gockel, LC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Kerrie M. Plummer, Lora L. McCollom, Gonzalez, Saggio & Harlan, LLP, West Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1183
                    A.  Procedural Background .........................................1183
                    B.  Factual Background ............................................1183
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ....................................................1185
                    A. Standards For Summary Judgment .................................1185
                    B. Elements Of A Prima Facie Case Of Disparate Treatment ..........1186
                       1. Dunbar's "qualification" ....................................1187
                       2. Adverse employment action ...................................1188
                       3. Treatment of similarly situated persons .....................1189
                    C. Further Showings ...............................................1190
                       1. Desert Palace v. Costa and its impact .......................1191
                          a. The Supreme Court's decision .............................1192
                          b. Responses of the lower courts ............................1192
                              i. Dare v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ........................1192
                              ii. Other decisions .....................................1193
                
                c. Analysis .............................................1195
                    2. Application of the modified paradigm ....................1198
                       a. Pepsi's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons ........1198
                       b. Dunbar's showing of "intentional discrimination" .....1198
                           i.  Pretext alternative .............................1199
                           ii. Mixed-motive alternative ........................1200
                III. CONCLUSION ................................................1200
                

Among other issues, this case poses the question of what impact the Supreme Court's recent decision in Desert Palace v. Costa, 539 U.S. ____, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), has on the continued viability of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm for "circumstantial evidence" cases of employment discrimination. The plaintiff contends that, even if he cannot demonstrate "pretext" at the final stage of the burden-shifting analysis, he has nevertheless presented a jury question on his claim of disparate treatment based on race as a result of the Supreme Court's conclusion in Desert Palace that, to be entitled to a "mixed-motive" instruction, the plaintiff does not have to present "direct" evidence of discrimination. The defendant contends that, whatever the impact of Desert Palace, the plaintiff has failed to present a triable claim of disparate treatment based on race.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Procedural Background

In this action, filed May 31, 2002, plaintiff James Dunbar, an African-American, asserts race discrimination claims against his former employer, defendant Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa, Inc. (Pepsi), pursuant to both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), IOWA CODE CH. 216. Somewhat more specifically, in Count I of his Complaint, Dunbar alleges disparate treatment in violation of Title VII premised on allegations that he was terminated from his employment as a warehouse worker at Pepsi's Mason City facility and subjected to different terms and conditions of employment because of his race. In Count II, he alleges a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the ICRA.

This matter is now before the court pursuant to Pepsi's July 1, 2003, motion for summary judgment on Dunbar's disparate treatment and hostile environment claims. On August 4, 2003, Dunbar resisted the motion for summary judgment, but only as to the disparate treatment claim. In his resistance, Dunbar expressly states that he "is not contesting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's racial harassment claim." Plaintiff's Suggestions In Opposition To Defendant Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers Of Iowa, Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment (Plaintiff's Brief), 18. Therefore, Pepsi's motion for summary judgment will be granted as to Count II of Dunbar's Complaint, and the court's analysis will focus entirely on whether or not there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment on Dunbar's claim of disparate treatment based on race in violation of Title VII. Pepsi filed its reply in further support of its motion for summary judgment on Dunbar's disparate treatment claim on August 12, 2003. Neither party requested oral arguments, so this matter is fully submitted on the parties' written filings.

B. Factual Background

Whether or not a party is entitled to summary judgment ordinarily turns on whether or not there are genuine issues of material fact for trial. See, e.g., Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir.1996). Nevertheless, the court will not attempt here a comprehensive review of the undisputed and disputed facts in the record. Rather, the court will present here only sufficient factual background to put in context the parties' arguments for and against summary judgment on Dunbar's disparate treatment claim. More attention will be given to specific factual disputes, where necessary, in the court's legal analysis, below.

The parties agree that Dunbar was hired in August 1998 as a full-time employee in Pepsi's warehouse in Mason City, Iowa. Dunbar was hired by Dave Van Syoc, the Warehouse Supervisor. Dunbar was one of four to six men working in the warehouse besides Van Syoc. However, Dunbar was the only African-American working there. Dunbar's job involved using a forklift to load pallets of Pepsi products onto delivery trucks. Each loader was ordinarily assigned one side of a truck, either "even" or "odd," to load, based on a loading sheet.

In the fall of 1998, based on complaints about loading errors from Pepsi delivery drivers, Van Syoc cautioned or warned the loaders to do a better job. However, on September 11, 1998, Van Syoc discovered numerous errors in the loading of a truck on which Dunbar and another loader, named Paul Lee, had been working. After Lee had completed loading his side of the truck, he had assisted Dunbar with loading Dunbar's side. Although Dunbar asserts that Lee tried to take responsibility for the loading errors, Van Syoc gave Dunbar a written disciplinary report for the loading errors, apparently because he believed that Dunbar had coerced Lee into admitting the loading mistakes and/or because Dunbar had failed to double-check the load before signing off on the loading sheet. Dunbar refused to sign the "write up," because he believed that Lee had made the loading errors, and he alleges that Van Syoc refused to listen to his side of the story or to allow him to file a written rebuttal with the disciplinary "write up." Pepsi contends that the "write up" was a "Group II-E violation" of Pepsi's General Rules of Conduct, which would warrant a $50 reduction in an employee's year-end bonus. The year-end bonus was part of an Employee Incentive Program, which calculated the bonus on the basis of "points," each worth $1 in year-end bonus, accumulated by individual employees based upon such job performance factors as attendance and lack of safety violations.

The next incident of significance to Dunbar's remaining claim of disparate treatment occurred in December of 1998. On or about December 21, 1998, Van Syoc distributed the year-end bonuses to the warehouse employees. Dunbar believed that he had accumulated 45 "points" toward his bonus, so that he expected a bonus of $45. Although other employees received bonuses, Dunbar did not. Instead, Van Syoc informed Dunbar that he had not received a bonus, because of the "write up" on September 11, 1998. Dunbar alleges that he became "distraught," and felt "dejected" and "violated" when he learned that he would not receive a bonus. However, he apparently did not have any further conversation with Van Syoc about the matter until December 24, 1998, even though he worked December 22nd and 23rd and most of the shift on December 24th. On December 24, 1998, after learning that other employees had received bonuses, Dunbar contends that he became distraught and dizzy, and asked Van Syoc if he could leave, because he did not feel well. Pepsi contends that Van Syoc denied Dunbar's request, apparently after consulting by telephone with his immediate superior, William Galligan, who was the Plant Manager at the time. Pepsi also contends that Galligan told Van Syoc to tell Dunbar that leaving before permission was granted would be insubordination. However, Dunbar contends that Van Syoc did not tell him he could not go home, or that he would be fired if he did leave, although Dunbar asserts that Van Syoc did tell him that he would need a doctor's excuse if he did leave. Dunbar left work early on December 24, 1998.

Pepsi contends that, notwithstanding that he was supposedly too ill to continue working, Dunbar took his stepdaughter out to dinner that evening. However, Dunbar contends that he attempted to see a doctor after leaving work, but could not get an appointment until December 29, 1998. Dunbar called in sick each day through December 29th. Dunbar was eventually seen by a doctor, Dr. Claussen, on December 29, 1998. Dr. Claussen prescribed blood-pressure medication and provided Dunbar with excuses from work. When Dunbar attempted to return to work, Van Syoc informed him that he was terminated.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Standards For Summary Judgment

As this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Martin v. J.A.M. Distributing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • July 13, 2009
    ...(quoting Rishel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 854, 865 (M.D.N.C.2003) (quoting Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers of Iowa, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1198 (N.D.Iowa 2003))); accord Fahim, 551 F.3d at 349; Berquist, 500 F.3d at 349; Keelan v. Majesco Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 341 (5th ......
  • Levias v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, CIV.A.H-02-4142.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • April 15, 2004
    ...WL 21976027, *12 (S.D.Iowa Jul 03, 2003) (Longstaff, C.J.) (adopting the analysis in Dare); Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 1180 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (Bennett, C.J.); Rishel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 854 (M.D.N.C.2003) (Beaty, J.) (explicitly a......
  • Anderson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • December 3, 2004
    ...312 (quoting Rishel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 854, 865 (M.D.N.C.2003) (quoting Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers of Iowa, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1197-98 (N.D.Iowa 2003))). If the plaintiff demonstrates that age was a "motivating factor" in the employment decision, the d......
  • Carey v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 15, 2004
    ...of § 2000e-2(m). What this Court does find persuasive is the thoughtful and thorough analysis provided in Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers, 285 F.Supp.2d 1180 (N.D.Iowa 2003). The court in Dunbar held that the McDonnell Douglas framework need only be modified in light of Desert Palace. Re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Disability discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • April 30, 2014
    ...v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc. , 321 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Ohio 2004). Eighth : Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers of Iowa, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1197-98 (N.D. Iowa 2003), disagreed with by Griffith v. City of Des Moines , 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004). §4:515Rebuttal: Motivat......
  • Gender discrimination and sexual harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • April 30, 2014
    ...v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc. , 321 F.Supp.2d 902 (S.D. Ohio 2004). Eighth : Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers of Iowa, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1197-98 (N.D. Iowa 2003), disagreed with by Griffith v. City of Des Moines , 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004). §1:450 Rebuttal: Motivating......
  • Religious discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • April 30, 2014
    ...v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc. , 321 F. Supp. 2d 902 (S.D. Ohio 2004). Eighth: Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers of Iowa, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1197-98 (N.D. Iowa 2003), disagreed with by Griffith v. City of Des Moines , 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004). Tenth: Barcikowski v. Su......
  • Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • May 1, 2023
    ...not explain how our summary judgment analysis must be modified. But he relies on Dunbar v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers of Iowa, Inc. , 285 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1197 (N.D. Iowa 2003), where the court concluded that, at the summary judgment stage, the third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis m......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT