Becker v. Linn Cnty.

• Decision Date: 01 December 2021
• Docket Number: 20-CV-23-CJW-MAR
• Parties: SCOTT BECKER, Plaintiff, v. LINN COUNTY, IOWA; and LINN COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

SCOTT BECKER, Plaintiff,
v.
LINN COUNTY, IOWA; and LINN COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-23-CJW-MAR

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

December 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

C.J. Williams, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 3

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .............................................. 13

III. DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 15

A. Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment ............................ 16

B. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment .................................. 18

1. ICRA Failure to Accommodate ......................................... 19

a. Reassignment ....................................................... 21

b. Harassment-Free Workplace .................................... 22

2. ICRA Gender-Based Harassment ....................................... 23

a. Statute of Limitations & Continuing Violations .............. 25

1

b. Defendants' Substantive Arguments ............................ 28

i. Severe or Pervasive ....................................... 28

ii. Defendants' Response to Harassment 31

3. ICRA Retaliation for Complaining of Gender-Based Harassment .................................................................. 32

a. Motivating Factor ................................................. 35

b. Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason ......................... 36

4. FMLA Discrimination and Retaliation ................................. 38

a. Monetary Damages ................................................ 43

b. FMLA Discrimination Based on Harassment 44

c. FMLA Retaliation ................................................. 48

IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 49

2

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. On August 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a partial motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 32). Defendants timely filed their resistance. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff did not file a reply.^[1] Also on August 30, 2021, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 33). Plaintiff timely filed his resistance. (Doc. 42). Defendants timely filed their reply. (Doc. 51). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply brief in resistance to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54).

For the following reasons, plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment is granted and defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.^[2]

Plaintiff Scott Becker worked as a Sheriff's Deputy in the Linn County Jail from 2011, to April 27, 2020. (Docs. 33-1, at 1, 12; 42-1, at 1, 27). Central to the parties' dispute are the questions of what motivated plaintiff's alleged harassment (see Docs. 42-2, at 7; 49, at 11), and why plaintiff was fired. (See Docs. 33-1, at 11; 42-1, at 24). Plaintiff alleges that his firing stems from his request and subsequent taking of Family

3

Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave around the birth of his second child in 2018. (Doc. 15, at 2, 6-7). On February 12, 2018, plaintiff submitted an FMLA request for two weeks when his son was born and eight weeks from July 1, 2018, to September 1, 2018. (Docs. 33-1, at 1; 42-1, at 1). His request was granted the next day. (Docs. 33-1, at 1; 42-1, at 1-2). Plaintiff admits that he knew his fellow deputies might be upset about working extra hours to cover plaintiff's leave.^[3] (Docs. 33-1, at 2; 42-1, at 2). Plaintiff had been criticized by his fellow deputies at least twice before for his use of sick time. (Docs. 33-1, at 2; 42-1, at 2).

Plaintiff alleges that his fellow deputies and supervisors began harassing him for requesting and taking FMLA leave. On or before February 2, 2018, plaintiff had toilet paper and women's hygiene products put on and in his locker. (Docs. 33-1, at 2; 42-1, at 2-3). He emailed Lieutenant Kent Steenblock about this and also stated that he had received multiple emails stating that he “should feel guilty.” (Docs. 33-1, at 2; 42-1, at 3). Around this time, deputies told plaintiff that his use of FMLA was “a dick move” and that plaintiff was “fucking [his fellow deputies] over, ” and called plaintiff selfish. (Docs. 42-2, at 1; 49, at 2). In his email to Lieutenant Steenblock, plaintiff described the behavior as harassment. (Docs. 33-1, at 2; 42-1, at 2-3). Lieutenant Steenblock spoke to plaintiff and to Jail Commander Major Pete Wilson about the situation. (Docs. 33-1, at 2; 42-1, at 3). Neither Lieutenant Steenblock nor Major Wilson acted to stop the harassment. (Docs. 42-2, at 17; 49, at 30).

Around this time, deputies formed an “isolation agreement” regarding plaintiff and shunned him (Docs. 42-2, at 3; 49, at 3-4), even though deputies rely heavily on each other, particularly when dealing with inmates who can be dangerous and occasionally armed. (Docs. 42-2, at 17-18; 49, at 31). One deputy told plaintiff that he

4

recognized this behavior was related to “taking time off with your kid.” (Docs. 42-2, at 3; 49, at 4). Another deputy told plaintiff he was “better than” taking FMLA leave and “should have some regard for [his] coworkers.” (See Docs. 42-2, at 2; 49, at 3).

Plaintiff's alleged harassment continued during his FMLA leave. During his second period of FMLA leave in August 2018, Lieutenant Matt Pavelka asked plaintiff whether he got fired^[4] and after plaintiff responded that he did not, Lieutenant Pavelka replied that he should have. (Docs. 33-1, at 3; 42-1, at 6). This exchange occurred in front of multiple sergeants and other staff. (Docs. 42-2, at 3; 49, at 5). While plaintiff was out, his coworkers stopped texting him and inviting him to socialize outside of work. (Docs. 33-1, at 3; 42-1, at 6).

Comments from plaintiff's fellow deputies persisted when plaintiff returned from leave in September 2018. (Docs. 33-1, at 4; 42-1, at 7). One deputy said he was not allowed to talk to plaintiff. (Docs. 33-1, at 3; 42-1, at 5-6). In September or October 2018, Sergeant Casey Meyer, plaintiff's direct supervisor, said he could not tell plaintiff what he thought of his use of FMLA because if he did, he would “get fired.” (Docs. 42-2, at 2-3; 49, at 4). Around the same time, a deputy turned “FMLA” into a derisive nickname for plaintiff. (Docs. 42-2, at 4; 49, at 6).

On September 25, 2018, plaintiff emailed Major Wilson, writing, “my property has disappeared again from the 3rd floor breakroom. There is a list of harassment that continues to grow. I would like those harassment issues to stop.” (Docs. 33-1, at 4; 42-1, at 7). Plaintiff also reiterated his commitment to Linn County before stating, “However; many staff members have expressed their dislike in many forms of me employing my right to FMLA under the Linn County gu[i]delines. I am trying to handle

5

this in a professional manner.” (Docs. 33-1, at 4; 42-1, at 7). Major Wilson neither responded to plaintiff nor took action to stop the harassment. (See Docs. 33-1, at 4; 42-1, at 7).

Plaintiff's alleged harassment persisted into the following year. Deputies called plaintiff a “blue falcon, ” a military euphemism for “buddy fucker”-a person who “will screw over his friends for his own benefit”-and put blue falcon stickers on his locker.^[5](Docs. 42-4, at 4; 49, at 6). In April 2019, when walking out of the jail with two deputies, one deputy turned to plaintiff and said, “[d]on't talk to me, you piece of shit.” (Docs. 42-2, at 4; 49, at 6-7). In May 2019, plaintiff mentioned to a fellow deputy that he might bid for a patrol position. (Docs. 42-2, at 4; 49, at 7). The deputy responded that patrol “wouldn't let [him]” because plaintiff had taken FMLA. (Docs. 42-2, at 4; 49, at 7). Also in May, plaintiff was in the breakfast breakroom with five or six deputies and Sergeant Erich Lear when someone made a joke about plaintiff's use of FMLA. ((Docs. 42-2, at 4; 49, at 7). Deputy Walton yelled, “I don't care if my wife is fucking bleeding out on the table, I wouldn't take FMLA.” (Docs. 42-2, at 4; 49, at 7). According to at least two of plaintiff's fellow deputies, plaintiff's work situation had become “toxic” and “pretty severe.” (Docs. 42-2, at 5; 49, at 7-8).

On June 26, 2019, plaintiff complained to the County's human resources department about the foregoing events. (Docs. 33-1, at 4; 42-1, at 8). He complained that he was being harassed because of use of FMLA and his sex. (Docs. 42-2, at 5; 49, at 8).

On July 17th, Sheriff Gardner emailed the staff and said that a complaint had been made and interviews would be conducted. (Docs. 33-1, at 5; 42-1, at 9). He also circulated the County's new Workplace Harassment Policy. (42-2, at 8; 49, at 12). The

6

County hired an outside investigator, Douglas Duckett, to investigate plaintiff's complaint and related issues in the jail. (Docs. 33-1, at 5; 42-1, at 9). Sheriff Gardner was worried that plaintiff's coworkers might retaliate against him, so Duckett warned every interviewee that the Sheriff would “come down like a ton of bricks” if he learned deputies were “freezing [plaintiff] out or not helping him” like they would other deputies. (Doc. 42-2, at 11; 49, at 19).

Then, on August 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a discrimination and retaliation complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, alleging that “some form of harassment continues every day, including isolation, lack of assistance, and/or hurtful comments.” (Doc. 42-2, at 11; 49, at 19).”

On August 27, 2019, Duckett and Director Powell interviewed plaintiff, who gave examples of harassment and reported racist and sexist language used at the jail. (Docs. 42-2, at 5, 12;...