Alderson v. Ferrellgas, Inc.

Decision Date31 August 2015
Docket NumberCause No. 3:12–CV–305–TLS.
Citation127 F.Supp.3d 937
Parties Jeanette ALDERSON, Plaintiff, v. FERRELLGAS, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

Colby A. Barkes, Blachly Tabor Bozik & Hartman LLC, Valparaiso, IN, for Plaintiff.

John A. Drake, Robert John Kuehn, III, LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC, South Bend, IN, Brent N. Coverdale, Scharnhorst Ast Kennard Griffin PC, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Judge.

According to Plaintiff Jeanette Alderson's Complaint, her former employer, Ferrellgas, Inc., discriminated and retaliated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), retaliated against her in violation of Title VII, subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her gender, and failed to pay her overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Indiana's civil conversion statute. The Defendant has moved for summary judgment [ECF No. 62] on all the claims alleged by the Plaintiff. Also pending is the Defendant's Motion for Relief Due to Destruction of Evidence [ECF No. 60], and the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Portions of Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Waived or Stricken, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Surreply [ECF No. 73]. Each of these motions is accompanied by a brief in support, a response brief, and a reply brief. Additionally, there are also more than 600 pages of exhibits.

The Court, having considered the parties' briefs in their entirety, concludes that summary judgment is warranted in favor of the Defendant. In doing so, the Court finds it unnecessary to strike any briefs (as requested by the Plaintiff), to strike any claims (as requested by the Defendant), to consider arguments waived (as requested by the Plaintiff), or to sanction the Plaintiff (as requested by the Defendant).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts are largely undisputed, yet the parties arrive at drastically divergent interpretations of the events that precipitated the Plaintiff's termination of employment at Ferrellgas. The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff lost her customer service job after she refused to acknowledge some of her basic job duties and engaged in unprofessional and insubordinate conduct. According to the Plaintiff, it was because she participated in statutorily protected activity that the Defendant removed significant duties from her, gave her a written warning, and terminated her employment.

A. Customer Service Specialist Position

The Defendant sells propane to residential, commercial, and agricultural customers. The Plaintiff began her employment with the Defendant in May 2010 as a part-time Customer Service Specialist (CSS). Before the Defendant hired the Plaintiff, she had her leg amputated slightly below her knee. She wears a prosthetic leg. When she was hired, the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant with any documentation identifying any restrictions on her work abilities, and did not identify any disability or suggest the need for any accommodation. The Plaintiff began training at the Plymouth Service Center in Plymouth, Indiana. Four other offices, referred to as Service Units, were also part of the Plymouth Service Center. All except one Service Unit was staffed by a CSS. In August 2010, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Francesville Service Unit, where she was the only office employee. The Plaintiff typically worked alone and served as the main contact for customers, both by phone and in person, while drivers made deliveries. The CSS position also provides general administrative support, which means that additional responsibilities are assigned as needed.

Greg Wetters was the General Manager over the Plymouth Service Center. He reported to Rick O'Connor, the Regional Vice President. Wetters typically worked in the Plymouth office. In November 2010, Wetters assigned the generalized accounts payable tasks to the Plaintiff after receiving her input about time management. Such tasks entail paying bills or paying for an item, keeping receipts, and preparing a spreadsheet reflecting these purchases for submission to Wetters. Wetters estimates that the accounts payable tasks take between 8 and 15 hours per month. In connection with these duties, the Plaintiff received a company-issued credit card called a P–Card. The card allowed the employee to make payments or purchases.

On June 3, 2011, Wetters submitted a request for a P–Card for Twila Eenigenburg, the Lead CSS. Wetters did so because he had concluded that someone other than the Plaintiff should be responsible for accounts payable. On May 12, 2011, the Defendant's corporate accounts payable department had to follow up with Wetters because the Plaintiff had sent in an invoice without Wetters's signature of approval. Additionally, the Plaintiff had become upset to the point of having to leave work early on one occasion. Then, on June 3, she called Wetters three times in rapid succession when she was dealing with a vendor, and then yelled at him when he answered.

Wetters did not immediately reassign the accounts payable responsibilities, but informed the Plaintiff and another CSS that cross-training would occur. On June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a statement to corporate accounts payable that was missing a receipt, which had to be corrected. On July 13, 2011, corporate accounts payable had to contact the Plaintiff about two invoices that Wetters had not approved before she submitted them. Eventually, the AP duties were transferred to Eenigenburg.

B. Participation in the Labor Day Parade

The Defendant was a major participant at the Blueberry Festival held in Plymouth, Indiana, over Labor Day weekend. It was the Defendant's biggest event of the year. As part of the Festival, the Defendant sponsored a balloon glow and its employees would participate in a parade. Wetters considered the company's participation a valuable way to promote itself in the community and as a team-building event for the Ferrellgas employees.

In preparation for the event, one of the CSS's, Angela Haines, inquired by email about shirt sizes for employees and any children that would be participating in the parade. The Plaintiff responded, "I probably won't be going this year." (Email (July 6, 2011), ECF No. 63–35.) Haines replied that she was told the parade was mandatory, and that the summer cookout was after the parade. Haines then followed up with an email to confirm that the parade was Monday, September 5, and that Ed Read, the Operations Manager, said it was mandatory. Alderson wrote: "Well, I didn't know what day it was even on [.] That's fine. Is it a Saturday & is it something we are getting paid for if we need to be at the parade. I don't usually go to parades of any kind because of the crowds, it's hard on my leg, so that has to be something that's considered." (Id. ) Haines wrote: "No, it[']s on Monday. You can always ride in a truck with someone, then afterward the plan is to have a luncheon and play games and stuff at the office." (Id. ) The Plaintiff responded that she did not "do well walking or standing in crowds where it's easy to lose balance or get knocked down." (Id. ) Haines confirmed that the festival drew a large number of people, but assured the Plaintiff that "you wouldn't be expected to walk. You could ride in the truck." She added, "I think they just want all of us to be together and this is the perfect way and like I said a get together afterwards." Haines assumed they would get paid, but was not sure. She relayed that Wetters wanted the employees to be proud of their company and represent it, and again reiterated that the Plaintiff could ride and would not be expected to walk. The Plaintiff responded that she "just realized it was labor day." She indicated that "it's not going to go well. My husband is already over protect[ive] when it comes to crowds and we usually go out to the camp ground that weekend with his best friend and his wife." (Id. ) She indicated that she would have to talk to Wetters about it. Haines responded that she would not put the Plaintiff on a list for a shirt until she knew for sure if she was coming. Haines extended the invitation for the company event to the Plaintiff's husband. In the Plaintiff's final response to Haines, she indicated she would talk to Wetters, but was "already stressing about even telling Rodney because of course the crowd thing just gets him worried and then the fact that's [sic] its Labor day weekend, a holiday we already have off from the company." (Id. )

On July 18, the Plaintiff emailed Wetters. She wrote that she "heard that we were all required to be in the parade on Labor Day." (Email (July 18, 2011), ECF No. 63–16.) She advised that if she was supposed to attend, she would have to drive about three hours from where she was staying with her husband and friends. She explained, "We have been doing this for the last 20 years or so. Then I will have to drive back that way right after wards for the annual BBQ at the lake we have with whatever of our kids that come on the day. Rodney would not come with since this is a planned holiday weekend that he looks forward to." (Id. ) The Plaintiff requested that Wetters let her know what was happening that day so she could arrange her schedule and let her husband know what to expect. In response, Wetters emphasized the team building aspect of the event and the opportunity for families to spend time together. He said that the Blueberry Festival Parade was an annual event, and that he needed people who "want to be there and be apart of a team." He noted that he had repeatedly stressed that it was the single biggest event of the year, and encouraged the Plaintiff to look at it from a different perspective—as a team building opportunity. He wrote, "I understand your need to spend time with our family and I will not stop you from going camping on this weekend, but I also know you are having some issues with why the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Leskovisek ex rel. Stanley v. Ill. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • 11 Diciembre 2020
    ...causation for their retaliation claim and that Plaintiffs did not suffer an adverse employment action. In Alderson v. Ferrellgas, Inc. , 127 F. Supp. 3d 937, 953 (N.D. Ind. 2015), the court discussed the standards that apply to an ADA retaliation claim:The Plaintiff asserts that the circums......

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