Brandes v. City of Waterloo

• Decision Date: 22 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-CV-2089-KEM,18-CV-2089-KEM
• Parties: MARK LOUIS BRANDES, SR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA; and STEVE HOAMBRECKER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

MARK LOUIS BRANDES, SR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA; and STEVE HOAMBRECKER, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-2089-KEM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

July 22, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2

II. DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 20

A. FMLA ..................................................................................... 20

1. Discrimination Claim ................................................................ 22

i. Adverse Employment Action ........................................................ 23

ii. Discriminatory Intent ................................................................ 25

2. Entitlement Claim .................................................................... 32

B. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy ................................. 35

C. Age Discrimination Under Iowa Law ................................................ 38

D. Disability Discrimination Under Iowa Law ......................................... 41

E. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ........................................ 44

III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 47

After Plaintiff Mark Louis Brandes Sr. was fired, he initiated this lawsuit against his former employer, the City of Waterloo, Iowa, (the City) and his supervisor, Steve Hoambrecker. Brandes alleges violations of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Iowa state-law claims of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, age and disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants move for summary judgment, and Brandes resists. Docs. 24, 33, 37, 40, 41. For the reasons that follow, I grant the motion (Doc. 24).

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are recited in the light most favorable to Brandes, the nonmoving party. Brandes, who has an associate's degree in construction and civil engineering, began working for the City's engineering department in 1995. Pl. SOF ¶¶ 1-2, 74; Def. Resp. SOF ¶¶ 1-2, 74.¹ In 2004, he sustained a back injury due to a work-related vehicle accident. Pl. SOF ¶ 7; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 7. Brandes also sustained nerve damage, as well as chronic painful constipation believed to be caused by the nerve damage. Pl. SOF ¶ 9; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 9. As a result of this accident, Brandes was deemed partially disabled and given permanent restrictions. Pl. SOF ¶ 8; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 8.

In July 2012, Brandes was promoted to the position of Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Specialist in the waste management department. Pl. SOF ¶ 3; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 3. At the time, Larry Smith was the director of the wastemanagement department. After Smith's termination in September 2015, the City contracted with a local engineering firm for one of its engineers, John LaPointe, to serve as the interim director of the waste management department. Def. SOF ¶ 5; Pl. Resp. SOF ¶ 5; Pl. SOF ¶¶ 26, 32; Def. Resp. ¶¶ 26, 32. LaPointe acted as Brandes's supervisor from October 2015 until June 13, 2016, when the City hired Hoambrecker to fill the director position permanently. Id. Prior to Hoambrecker's arrival, Brandes had never been written up or disciplined regarding his job performance. Pl. App. 96.

During his time as interim director, LaPointe found Brandes's work performance deficient. Def. Supp. App. 102-104. According to LaPointe, Brandes routinely failed to follow his instructions on what to do; failed to attend CMOM or sanitary sewer meetings, despite LaPointe requiring Brandes to keep minutes of the meetings; and failed to make recommendations about steps to take to solve problems, preferring instead to spend his time in the field observing problem areas and reporting their existence. Id. LaPointe indicated that he was forced to work around Brandes to get things done. Id. As interim director, LaPointe felt he did not have the power to discipline Brandes, but when Hoambrecker was hired, LaPointe conveyed his dissatisfaction with Brandes's performance to Hoambrecker. Id.; Def. App. 50-51. During LaPointe's time in the waste management department, Brandes missed work almost 20% of the time (including a two-week period covered by FMLA to care for his father), but his absences were all covered by paid vacation and sick leave. Pl. Resp. SOF ¶ 26; Pl. App. 153-58, 276-77. LaPointe indicated that although "Brandes did have some absences or time off from work, even when he was at work[,] he simply was not doing his routine, ordinary, assigned tasks." Def. Supp. App. 102. Brandes submitted an affidavit indicating he "never felt harassed by . . . LaPointe," and he testified at his deposition that his only complaint about LaPointe was LaPointe's failure to follow the "hierarchy" by asking others to complete assignments without asking Brandes first. Def. App. 37-38; Pl. App. 82.

From the beginning of Hoambrecker's time as Brandes's supervisor, Brandes believed Hoambrecker was "hostile and abusive" to him. Def. SOF ¶ 10; Pl. Resp. SOF¶ 10. According to Brandes, during Hoambrecker's first week, Hoambrecker observed Brandes not wearing his seatbelt and told him that if it happened again, he would "write [him] up" or terminate him. Pl. App. 80. Shortly thereafter, Hoambrecker told Brandes that he heard he "talk[s] to the City Council" and goes out to eat with Smith, his former supervisor (who sued or was suing the City for age discrimination); and that he had looked at Brandes's personnel file. Pl. App. 80. At the end of Hoambrecker's second week, on June 24, 2016, Hoambrecker and Human Resources (HR) Manager Cheryl Huddleston met with Brandes to discuss his job duties. Pl. SOF ¶¶ 35-37; Def. Resp. SOF ¶¶ 35-37. The corresponding memo of the meeting indicated that Hoambrecker expected Brandes to attend all CMOM-related meetings and stay for their duration (noting that Brandes missed several such meetings the previous week) (Brandes testified at his deposition that he missed meetings or stepped out during meetings either to answer phone calls from sewer workers or to go to the bathroom due to his health issues). Def. App. 52; Pl. App. 171-72. The memo also noted that Brandes expressed frustration with LaPointe going around him to obtain information from Laura Wolff, the CMOM Technician and Brandes's subordinate, instead of Brandes. Id. Hoambrecker explained that LaPointe went to other sources for information only after Brandes failed to comply with LaPointe's requests for information. Id. Hoambrecker indicated that he expected Brandes to produce documents when Hoambrecker requested them, and in return, Hoambrecker stated that he would keep Brandes in the loop and go through him to request information. Id.

The memo also indicated that Brandes had been performing duties "that are more the responsibility of the Collections Systems[ ]Maintenance Supervisor." Id. Technically, Brandes, as the CMOM Specialist, was to report to the Collections System Maintenance Supervisor, who in turn reported to Hoambrecker, but the Collections System Maintenance Supervisor position had been vacant since October 2013. Id.; Pl. SOF ¶ 10; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 10. When the previous person who held that position retired in October 2013, Smith, then-director of the waste management department,emailed the mayor requesting that Brandes serve in the position on an interim basis. Pl. SOF ¶ 12; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 12; Pl. App. 107. The mayor replied that "[t]o make [Brandes] a supervisor, even on a temporary basis," the city council would have to approve the measure, and Brandes would receive a pay increase. Pl. App. 107. The mayor continued that they would then have to "undo" those steps as soon as they hired a replacement, so he indicated he would "rather try to get by until we get the new permanent position filled" without making Brandes the interim supervisor. Id. Smith responded he had not asked for Brandes to become a supervisor, but simply wanted to note that he and Brandes were picking up the slack of the vacant position and that Brandes understood he performed sewer-maintenance duties through his CMOM position. Id. The mayor replied that they had to follow procedure and that "picking up the slack" had not worked out well in the past. Id. The mayor indicated he would authorize the request for Brandes to be the interim "supervisor over sewer maintenance," in which he would receive a salary increase, but they had to follow the proper procedure to make that happen, including having the HR Committee approve the request. Id. Huddleston, the HR Manager, replied that it seemed unfair for Brandes to receive a supervisor's salary when he was only assuming some, but not all, of the duties of the position. Id. Brandes never received the increased salary, and he never became the official Interim Collections Systems Maintenance Supervisor, although he performed the duties of that position. See Pl. SOF ¶ 28; Def. Resp. SOF ¶ 28; Def. App. 52; Pl. App. 79, 90, 323. In January 2016, when LaPointe was in charge of the department, LaPointe requested that Brandes continue covering the Collections Systems Maintenance Supervisor position. Pl. SOF ¶ 33; Def. Resp. ¶ 33; Pl. App. 323. At the meeting with Hoambrecker in June 2016, however, Hoambrecker indicated he no longer wanted Brandes to direct sewer maintenance as he had been doing. Def. App. 52.

On August 5, 2016, Brandes completed paperwork requesting FMLA leave for a serious medical condition to begin on August 29, 2016. Pl. App. 278. Brandes had provided a note from his primary care provider, but the note did not contain datesindicating when Brandes would need to miss work due to his illness or what absences in the past were due to illness. Pl. App. 47. Thus, the FMLA paperwork indicated that Brandes's request for...