Alderson v. Ferrellgas, Inc.
Decision Date | 31 August 2015 |
Docket Number | Cause No. 3:12–CV–305–TLS. |
Citation | 127 F.Supp.3d 937 |
Parties | Jeanette ALDERSON, Plaintiff, v. FERRELLGAS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leskovisek ex rel. Stanley v. Ill. Dep't of Transp.
...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......