Bunda v. Potter

• Decision Date: 02 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. C 03-3102 MWB.,C 03-3102 MWB.
• Parties: Kathryn G. BUNDA, Plaintiff, v. John E. POTTER, Individually and in his official position as Postmaster General; United States Postal Service, and Ray Davidson, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

369 F.Supp.2d 1039

Kathryn G. BUNDA, Plaintiff, v. John E. POTTER, Individually and in his official position as Postmaster General; United States Postal Service, and Ray Davidson, Defendants.

No. C 03-3102 MWB.

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

May 2, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Blake Parker, Blake, Parker Law Office, Fort Dodge, IA, for Plaintiff.

Stephanie Johnson Wright, US Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, Martha A. Fagg, US Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................1042
                     A. Factual Background ...............................................1042
                        1. The parties ...................................................1042
                

                2. Allegations of harassment .....................................1043
                        3. Allegations of retaliation ....................................1043
                     B. Procedural Background ............................................1044
                        1. The Complaint .................................................1045
                        2. The motion for summary judgment ...............................1045
                        3. The defendants' motion to strike ..............................1045
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ......................................................1046
                     A. Standards For Summary Judgment ...................................1046
                     B. Proper Defendants ................................................1047
                        1. Arguments of the parties ......................................1047
                        2. Analysis ......................................................1048
                     C. Punitive Damages Against A Federal Agency ........................1049
                     D. Bunda's Hostile Environment Claim ................................1049
                        1. Arguments of the parties ......................................1049
                        2. Analysis ......................................................1051
                           a. Nature of the claim ........................................1051
                           b. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies and continuing
                                violations ...............................................1051
                                i. The exhaustion requirement ............................1051
                               ii. Morgan, exhaustion, and continuing violations .........1052
                              iii. Was there a "continuing violation"? ...................1052
                           c. The required showings on the merits ........................1053
                               i. The prima facie case ...................................1053
                              ii. Actionable harassment ..................................1054
                           d. Adequacy of the employer's response ........................1056
                               i. Standards for employer liability .......................1056
                              ii. Application of the standards ...........................1057
                           e. Damages for emotional distress .............................1058
                               i. Standards for emotional distress damages ...............1058
                              ii. Application of the standards ...........................1059
                        3. Summary .......................................................1060
                     E. Bunda's Retaliation Claim ........................................1060
                        1. Arguments of the parties ......................................1060
                        2. Analysis ......................................................1060
                           a. The applicable burden-shifting analysis ....................1060
                           b. Application of the standards ...............................1061
                III. CONCLUSION ..........................................................1062
                

Confusions and misdirections aside, the issue on the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this case is whether the plaintiff postal worker's claims of sexual harassment by a temporary supervisor and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment should go to a jury. When the proper standards are applied to the claims actually at issue, the answer to that question becomes if not clear, at least discernible.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

The court will not attempt here an exhaustive dissertation of the undisputed and disputed facts in this case. Rather, the court will identify the core of undisputed facts and sufficient of the disputed facts to put in context the parties' arguments for and against summary judgment.

1. The parties

Plaintiff Kathryn Bunda was and is an employee of the defendant United States Postal Service (USPS) at the Fort Dodge Iowa, Post Office. She was hired in 1993 and, for the majority of the time since, was employed as a mail processor or senior mail processor. She is a member of the "Clerk craft." Defendant John E. Potter is the Postmaster General of the USPS. Defendant Ray Davidson, like Bunda, is a member of the "Clerk craft" of the USPS in the Fort Dodge Post Office, but he has served as a "204B temporary supervisor" for certain periods of time.

2. Allegations of harassment

In late 1998, Bunda began making complaints to supervisors and managers at the Fort Dodge Post Office about harassment by Davidson. She made further complaints in early 1999, again on July 26, 1999, when Davidson was not a supervisor, and in 2000, when he was a supervisor. The harassment in late 1998 involved one incident in which Davidson purportedly grabbed Bunda's buttocks and said, "I can't resist your nice butt," to which Bunda responded by telling Davidson he should never do that to her again, and incidents, which Bunda contends were routine, in which Davidson would rub up against her with his body or pat her buttocks. In early 1999, Bunda reported to her supervisor, Bob Adams, that Davidson was sexually harassing her. Adams passed on the report to Officer In Charge (OIC) Kim Gould, who told Bunda that she would "handle it" by having Adams talk to Davidson. At an unknown date later in 1999, Bunda, accompanied by a friend, Martin Gubbels, reported to OIC Gould that Davidson was continuing to harass Bunda. On July 26, 1999, Davidson allegedly engaged Mr. Gubbels in conversation about how good Bunda might be in bed and the fantasies he had had about her, concluding the conversation by pinching Bunda's buttock in plain view of Mr. Gubbels. Bunda reported this incident, in writing, to her supervisor, June Martindale, who said she would report it to OIC Gould. Martindale allegedly told Bunda later that nothing would be done about the incident. Bunda alleges that, after July 26, 1999, Davidson continued to make lewd comments, comment on her clothes and appearance, follow her around the Post Office, and once followed her halfway home. Bunda alleges that Davidson also harassed other female employees of the Post Office. The defendants have denied these specific allegations of harassment on the ground that Bunda has not provided sufficient support for her allegations to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Bunda contends that she has suffered anxiety and other physical and emotional problems because of the harassment. The defendants also deny these allegations on the ground that Bunda's citations to the record are insufficient.

3. Allegations of retaliation

In addition to harassment, Bunda alleges that Post Office managers and supervisors retaliated against her for complaining about Davidson's harassment by taking various kinds of disciplinary action against her. Bunda admits that her own behavior toward Davidson and other supervisors led to disciplinary action, but she contends that the disciplinary action was, nevertheless, taken in retaliation for her complaints about harassment.

Somewhat more specifically, Bunda admits that she was disciplined in April 2000 for an incident in which she refused to follow instructions from her supervisor, Ms. Martindale. Although Bunda admits that she raised her middle finger at Ms. Martindale, she denies the allegation that she accompanied the gesture with foul language. She also contends that other people who made similar gestures to supervisors, or even used foul language, were not disciplined. Bunda received a letter of warning for "improper conduct/failure to follow instructions." Bunda contends that she filed a grievance about the disciplinary letter, because she contends that Martindale's instructions violated seniority rules. She asserts that she dropped the grievance when Martindale left the Post Office.

Another incident occurred on July 19, 2000, in which Bunda admits that she refused to follow Davidson's instructions to report to work at the "box section" at another USPS facility in downtown Fort Dodge. Bunda again contends that the direction from Davidson violated seniority rules, although she did eventually report to the "box section," accompanied by Mr. Gubbels. Bunda also admits that she had a confrontation with Davidson on July 20, 2000, when she refused to follow his directions for putting labels into a sorting machine in a manner that she considered unsafe. Bunda admits that she did not file a report about unsafe operation of the sorting machine until August 17, 2000. At the time of the incident, Bunda was sent home, but Bunda contends that no formal disciplinary action was taken against her for any of the incidents in July 2000 until after she filed internal complaints about harassment in August 2000. As a result of the disciplinary complaints from the incidents in July 2000, Bunda was issued a two-week suspension. The suspension was actually issued by another supervisor, Kim Eaton, rather than by Davidson, because Davidson did not have the authority as a 204B temporary supervisor to take such disciplinary action. Bunda was never required to serve the suspension, because she filed a grievance about it, and the time within which a disciplinary penalty must be served has since expired.

Bunda also claims that, on ...