Beekman v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

• Citation: 635 F.Supp.2d 893
• Decision Date: 25 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. C07-3079-MWB.,C07-3079-MWB.
• Parties: Lisa BEEKMAN, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

635 F.Supp.2d 893

Lisa BEEKMAN, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. C07-3079-MWB.

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

June 25, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jill M. Zwagerman, Fiedler & Newkirk, P.L.C., Des Moines, IA, Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Newkirk Law Firm PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Anita M. Sorensen, Bernard J. Bobber, Carmen N. Couden, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Madison, WI, for Defendant.

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

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 898
                      A. Factual Background ................................................... 898
                         1. The parties and policies involved ................................. 898
                         2. Beekman's absences ................................................ 899
                         3. Beekman's injuries ................................................ 901
                      B. Procedural Background ................................................ 902
                         1. Beekman's claims .................................................. 902
                         2. The Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ......................... 902
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................... 903
                      A. Standards for Summary Judgment ....................................... 903
                      B. Beekman's FMLA Claims ................................................ 905
                         1. The applicable statute of limitations ............................. 906
                         2. Beekman's FMLA interference claims ................................ 909
                            a. January 18 and 19, 2005 ........................................ 910
                            b. May 5, 2005 .................................................... 910
                            c. July 29, 2005 .................................................. 912
                            d. November 15,2005 ............................................... 913
                            e. November 19 and 20, 2005 ....................................... 914
                         3. Beekman's FMLA retaliation claim .................................. 915
                            a. Beekman's prima facie case of FMLA retaliation ................. 915
                            b. The Company's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason and
                Beekman's showing of pretext ...................................... 917
                      C. Beekman's Common Law Wrongful Discharge Claim ........................ 918
                         1. Beekman's status as an at-will employee ........................... 919
                         2. Beekman's prima facie case of wrongful discharge .................. 921
                         3. The Company's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and
                Beekman's showing of pretext .................................... 923
                III. CONCLUSION ............................................................... 923
                

A former employee at a pet food company alleges that the company interfered with her ability to take Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave on several occasions, retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA when it terminated her, and wrongfully discharged her in violation of the public policy set out in Iowa's workers' compensation laws, Iowa Code Chapter 85. The company, however, claims that it repeatedly honored the employee's request for FMLA leave and workers' compensation claims. The employee's termination, according to the company, was due to her abysmal attendance record and her accumulation of more than a sufficient number of points to terminate her under its attendance policy.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

The court will not attempt, here, an exhaustive dissertation on the undisputed and disputed facts in this case. Rather, the court will set forth sufficient facts, both undisputed and disputed, to put the parties' arguments in context concerning the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. Additional factual allegations and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material will be discussed, if necessary, in the court's legal analysis.

1. The parties and policies involved

The defendant, Nestle Purina Petcare Company ("Company"), hired plaintiff, Lisa Beekman, in April of 2001. During Beekman's employment with the Company, she worked at its Fort Dodge, Iowa facility. Her last position was in production as a Process Relief Operator, where she covered jobs on the production line while the regular operators were on break. When regular operators were not on break, Beekman performed general housekeeping tasks. The Company terminated Beekman on November 22, 2005, for allegedly violating its attendance policy.

The Company has a "no fault" attendance policy. Any absence from an employee's scheduled shift is recorded, unless the absence falls into certain categories that are not assessed attendance points. Some of these categories include: bereavement leave, military duty, jury duty, court appearance (with subpoena), holiday or vacation, approved leave of absence, work related injury, temporary layoff, FMLA leave, shift curtailment by the Company, union business, and preauthorized absences. According to the Company, if an employee is absent from work for any reason other than those reasons identified in the attendance policy, the employee is assessed attendance points.

The attendance points are assessed as follows: 2 points per absence; 1 point per additional consecutive day of absence; 1 point per tardy¹; and 1 point per early leave². An employee can also be assigned an additional point if they fail to call-in prior to the shift to report the absence³, at least one hour prior to the start of their shift. The only person responsible for deciding whether an absence should not be scored points due to an excuse, at the Company's Fort Dodge facility, is Mary Crimmins, the human resources manager. If the employee receives certain sums of points within a 12 month period, he or she will receive varying levels of discipline as follows: 6 points warrants a verbal warning; 8 points, a written warning; 10 points, one day unpaid leave; and 15 points, termination. The attendance policy further states that employees who continuously hover around or over 6 points, or who exhibit trends of poor attendance, may be subject to more severe discipline.

Information concerning absences, as well as instructions concerning what to do in the event of an absence, is contained in an employee handbook. The handbook also contains a section describing the procedures to be followed if an employee needs to take a leave of absence under the FMLA—the employee must immediately notify his or her supervisor and obtain and submit the appropriate forms from, or to, the human resources department. These forms include the Request for Family/Medical Leave and Certification of Health Care Provider forms. According to the handbook, it is the employee's responsibility to make sure that the doctor's statement concerning the request for FMLA leave has been completed properly and received by the Company. The handbook also instructs employees to consult the plant attendance policy for further details. Beekman received a copy of this handbook.

2. Beekman's absences

Pursuant to the attendance policy, Beekman missed work and was properly assessed points on several occasions. The parties agree that Beekman had the following scored absences between 2001 and 2004:

Plaintiff's first unexcused absence occurred on August 2, 2001 and, on that date, Plaintiff was issued 2 points per the Attendance Policy. On September 5, 2001, Plaintiff was absent from work and received [2] attendance points. On October 2, 2001, Plaintiff left work early and received [1] attendance point. On October 14, 2001, Plaintiff was sick and received [2] attendance points. On October 14, 2001, Plaintiff received a Verbal Warning for exceeding 6 points. On January 20, 2002, Plaintiff was absent from work and received 2 points. On January 20, 2002, Plaintiff received a Written Warning for accumulating 9 attendance points. On January 21, 2002, Plaintiff was absent from work and received 1 point for a consecutive absence. On January 21, 2002, Plaintiff was placed on a Decision Making Leave suspension for accumulating 10 attendance points. Plaintiff continued to receive attendance points following her Decision Making Leave in January, 2002. Plaintiff received a Verbal Warning on February 20, 2003 for accumulating 8 attendance points. When Plaintiff received her Verbal Warning on February 20, 2003, Plaintiff was informed, in writing, that if she received another attendance point before her point total fell below 8 points, a Written Warning interview would be conducted with her. Plaintiff subsequently received an additional point for an unexcused tardy on April 21, 2003 and was issued a Written Warning for exceeding 8 points. On June 15, 2003, Plaintiff was sick and received 2 attendance points for her absence. On July 1, 2003, Plaintiff received a Decision Making Leave suspension for accumulating 11 attendance points. Plaintiff continued to incur additional attendance points throughout the next year and remained at or above 11 points until late February 2004 when some of her points rolled off. On June 3, 2004, Plaintiff left work early and was assessed [1] attendance point bringing her point total to 10 points which resulted in another Decision Making Leave for Plaintiff.

Doc. No. 28-3.

In 2005, the year containing all of the absences at issue in this lawsuit, the parties agree on the scoring for some of Beekman's absences and disagree on others. The parties, first, disagree as to whether Beekman's absence on January 13, 2005, was properly scored, but Beekman does not claim that the Company's alleged error in scoring points against her on this date was in...