Baker v. John Morrell & Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 2003
• Docket Number: No. C01-4003-MWB.,C01-4003-MWB.
• Citation: Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 249 F. Supp.2d 1138 (N.D. Iowa 2003)
• Parties: Rita Lynn BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN MORRELL & CO., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

249 F.Supp.2d 1138

Rita Lynn BAKER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN MORRELL & CO., Defendant.

No. C01-4003-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

March 17, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stanley E. Munger, Jay Elliot Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Melanie L. Carpenter, Gary P. Thimsen, Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC, Scott C. Folkers, Scott Folkers Law, Sioux Falls, SD, Leslie R. Stellman, Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, PA, Towson, MD, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND                                         1147
                II. DISCUSSION                                                         1149
                    A. Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law              1149
                       1. Applicable standards                                         1177
                       2. Sufficiency of the evidence—sexual harassment                1149
                          a. Based on sex                                              1152
                          b. Severe or pervasive                                       1155
                          c. Proper remedial action                                    1161
                          d. Summary                                                   1163
                       3. Sufficiency of the evidence—retaliation                      1164
                          a. Increased job duties, refusal to assist, denial of breaks 1165
                              i. Adverse employment actions?                          1165
                              ii. Causal connection                                  1168
                          b. Allowing the harassment to continue                       1169
                       4. Sufficiency of the evidence—constructive discharge           1170
                          a. Intolerableness of working conditions                     1171
                          b. Intentionally made working conditions intolerable         1174
                    B. Defendant's Motion for New Trial                                1177
                       1. Applicable standards                                         1177
                       2. Was the testimony of other John Morrell female employees so
                           unfairly prejudicial that a new trial is warranted?         1177
                       3. Specific allegations of harassment in jury instructions      1180
                       4. Admission of rumor evidence                                  1181
                       5. Admission of Dr. Jennings's testimony                        1182
                       6. Statements made during plaintiffs closing argument           1183
                    C. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint                           1184
                    D. Defendant's Motion to Amend the Judgment                        1190
                       1. Application of the statutory damages cap                     1191
                       2. Sufficiency of the evidence to support compensatory damages
                           award                                                       1192
                       3.  Summary of Damages                                          1194
                III. CONCLUSION                                                        1194
                

Title VII "is ... neither a general civility code nor a statute making actionable the ordinary tribulations of the workplace." ¹

The defendant in this sex discrimination case argued that this was precisely what the plaintiff was attempting to do. The jury rejected that contention, and following an exceptionally well-tried employment discrimination jury trial, the court is called upon in these post-trial motions to answer, among other things, whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence on her Title VII claims to support the jury's verdict in her favor. Specifically, the court will resolve the defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for new trial, and to amend judgment. The court must also resolve the plaintiffs motion to amend complaint.²

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This sex discrimination lawsuit arose out of Rita Baker's ("Baker") employment with the defendant, John Morrell & Co. ("John Morrell"), as a Computer Scale Operator in the defendant's Sioux City, Iowa meat packaging plant. Baker began her employment at John Morrell in 1984, and she continued to work for John Morrell until April of 2001. She initiated this lawsuit, claiming that she was constructively discharged, subjected to disparate treatment and a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliated against for challenging the sexual discrimination she endured at John Morrell—all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

The case was tried to a jury for seven days, beginning on September 23, 2002. The case was submitted to the jury in the late afternoon of October 1, 2002. The following afternoon, on October 2, 2002, the jury returned its verdict. It found in favor of Baker on her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. The jury also found on both of these claims that Baker was constructively discharged, and, pertinent to her retaliation claim, the jury found that John Morrell had failed to prove its "same decision" defense. On Baker's claim of disparate treatment, the jury found in favor of John Morrell.

The jury awarded the following damages for John Morrell's wrongful conduct: On her claim of sexual harassment, $250,000.00 for past emotional distress and $50,000.00 for future emotional distress; on her retaliation claim, $75,000.00 for past emotional distress and $10,000.00 for future emotional distress. The jury also awarded $150,000.00 for past emotional distress and $200,000.00 for future emotional distress for Baker's constructive discharge. Moreover, the jury awarded $14,470.24 for Baker's past medical expenses and $90,000.00 for future medical expenses on her sexual harassment claim. The jury also found that Baker was entitled to a $33,314.73 award for backpay. Finally, the jury assessed a sizable punitive damages award against John Morrell: $600,000.00 for sexual harassment and $50,000.00 for retaliation. The Clerk of Court entered this judgment on October 2, 2002.³

The plaintiff in this case is represented by lead counsel Stanley Munger, as well as by Jay Denne and Colby Lessman, all of Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, Iowa. The defendant is represented by Leslie Stellman of Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, P.A., Towson, Maryland, and by Scott Folkers, in-house counsel for John Morrell in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Presently before the court is the plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 120). The defendant has also filed several post-trial motions, which are before the court as well: Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. No. 131); Motion for New Trial (Doc. No. 133); and Motion to Amend Judgment (Doc. No. 135). Both parties filed timely resistances to the opposing party's various post-trial motions, and the court finds that the case is ripe for disposition.

The basis of John Morrell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, is threefold. First, John Morrell argues that the plaintiff produced insufficient evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the plaintiff on her sexual harassment claim because the evidence failed to show (1) that the harassment was "based on sex"; (2) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to have affected a term, condition, or privilege of Baker's employment; or (3) that John Morrell did not take proper remedial action. Second, the defendant contends that there was no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for Baker on her retaliation claim, primarily because John Morrell asserts that her claim fails for lack of causation. And third, John Morrell argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there was no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff on her claims of constructive discharge because Baker's working conditions at John Morrell were not objectively intolerable and because the evidence did not demonstrate that John Morrell intentionally made Baker's working conditions intolerable in an effort to force her to quit.

In the defendant's Motion for New Trial, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, John Morrell submits that it is entitled to a new trial because (1) the court erroneously allowed the unfairly prejudicial testimony of other current and former female John Morrell employees who testified that they had experienced sexual harassment at John Morrell; (2) the court improperly instructed the jury and prejudiced the defendant by including specific allegations of the alleged harassing conduct in Final Instruction No. 3, which outlined the elements of Baker's sexual harassment claim; (3) the court erroneously permitted hearsay rumor testimony; (4) the court erroneously allowed Baker's treating general physician to testify regarding the substance and causation of the plaintiffs emotional distress; and (5) in closing arguments, the plaintiffs counsel referred to the sexual harassment that Baker experienced as "terrorist" acts, which John Morrell argues was unwarranted and highly prejudicial to the defendant.

In John Morrell's last motion, its Motion to Amend Judgment, John Morrell argues that the court should reduce the plaintiffs substantial jury award to $300,000.00, exclusive of backpay, in order to comply with Title VII's statutory damages cap, as provided for by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). Moreover, the defendant requests the court further remit

Baker's emotional distress award on the grounds that the award is excessive and not supported by the evidence. John Morrell also contends that the jury's award for punitive damages must be stricken because...