Campbell v. Kraft Heinz Food Co.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:19-cv-00044-JEG-HCA,3:19-cv-00044-JEG-HCA |
| Citation | 465 F.Supp.3d 918 |
| Parties | Edgar T. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOOD COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Stuart L. Higgins, Higgins Law Firm, PLLC, West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
Martha L. Shaff, Betty Neuman & McMahon PLC, Davenport, IA, Daniel A. Kaplan Pro Hac Vice, Katelynn M. Williams, Pro Hac Vice, Foley & Lardner LLP, Madison, WI, for Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, brought by Defendant Kraft Heinz Food Company. Plaintiff Edgar Campbell resists. Neither party requested oral argument, and the Court finds none is necessary in resolving this motion. The matter is fully submitted and ready for disposition.
In March 2017, Campbell began working in the sanitation department of Kraft Heinz's plant in Scott County, Iowa. Campbell's responsibilities included using chemicals to clean production equipment. As a new hire, Campbell was subject to a sixty-day probationary period, as provided in the plant's collective bargaining agreement. Kraft Heinz's practice at the plant was to terminate probationary employees without issuing written warnings if they engaged in conduct that would result in any formal discipline for a non-probationary employee. Pursuant to this practice, Lisa Culberson—the plant's Operational Risk Manager—reports that the plant terminated four probationary plant employees in 2016 for violating Kraft Heinz's policies; relevant to this case, three of the four had not filed workers' compensation claims. See Def.'s App. 38–Culberson Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 21-3. Culberson further states, "Between January 2016 and June 2019, there were 34 Plant employees who suffered workplace injuries and who are either still employed, voluntarily quit, or retired." Id. at ¶ 4.
During his probationary period, Campbell was purportedly involved in two safety incidents. The first incident occurred on April 19, 2017, when Campbell became ill after exposure to noxious fumes. As a result, the plant conducted a "near-miss" investigation, documented in a report. The report starts with a handwritten statement:
Felt burning to the eyes due to strong chemical. Went to eye wash station, rinsed eyes out due to the burning sensation. Sat in office and started throwing up, shortness of breathe [sic]. Brought over to the office[.]
Def.'s App. 47–Culberson Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 21-3.
The report contains a "Loss Causation Model" checklist. Id. The checklist categorizes causes into "Basic Causes" and "Immediate Causes," both of which contain two sub-categories with several checkboxes. Id. Under the Basic Causes category–Personal Factors sub-category, the marked checkbox was "New / In Training"; under the Basic Causes category–Job Factors sub-category, the marked checkbox was "Inadequate Work Standards"; and under the Immediate Causes category–Substandard Conditions, the marked checkbox was "Inadequate Ventilation." Id.
The report also contains a form with the caption "Root Cause – 5 Why Analysis." Id. at 48. In response to a question about which body part was injured, a handwritten answer states, "No body part injured, smell of the chemical." Id. The form then asks, Id. The first portion of the handwritten answer is crossed out and illegible, and it then says, "chemical mixture." Id. The form then asks, "Why did that action occur?" several times. Id. The handwritten answers are: "Getting ready to clean," "Nightly sanitation duties," and "Production just got done." Id.
The next section of the report is labeled "Recommendations for Preventative Action." Id. at 49. The first recommendation—assigned to Jessica Triphan, a manager at the plant—is, "Make sure chemicals are dispensed into proper containers," and it is marked as completed on April 23, 2017. Id. The next recommendation—assigned to "Team members"—is "New hires/transfers need to watch and understand the process of dispensing chemicals," which is marked as "ongoing." Id. Next, in a section for indicating the severity of the incident and probability of recurrence, the lowest levels are selected for both severity and probability of recurrence. For severity, the incident is categorized as "Minor" (as opposed to "Major" or "Severe"), which is defined as, Id. For probability of recurrence, the incident is categorized as "Seldom" (as opposed to "Occasional" or "Frequent"), which is defined as occurring approximately once per year. Id. The report has the signatures of several individuals, including Campbell. Attached to the report are five pages of handwritten notes and statements. The last page of the report is a document with Campbell's type-written name at the top and several photos of chemical containers and labels. According to Culberson, the photos were of Campbell's work cart and were "taken during the investigation to document the person who mixed acid and chlorine, and [they] indicate[ ] that Plaintiff mixed acid and chlorine." Def.'s Supp. App.–2nd Culberson Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 30-2.
The second safety incident occurred on April 25, 2017, when Campbell suffered chemical burns on both wrists. Kraft Heinz's policy on personal protective equipment (PPE), as explained during training sessions for new hires such as Campbell, required sanitation department personnel not to wear cotton gloves against the skin, but to instead wear a rubber glove in between. According to Kraft Heinz, Campbell violated this policy by wearing cotton gloves against the skin, which resulted in his chemical burns. Campbell, however, denies that he violated the policy and claims that his injury occurred because the gloves he wore had pinholes in them that allowed exposure to chemicals.
Campbell's safety performance is marked as "Less Than Acceptable" in an April 26, 2017 performance evaluation. Def.'s App. 57–Culberson Decl. Ex. C, ECF No. 21-3. That checkbox is selected if the employee "[h]as exhibited on one or more than one occasion a failure to adhere to safe work instructions and procedures or not using appropriate PPE's, etc." Id. Campbell's overall performance is also marked as "Less Than Acceptable." Id. at 58. A handwritten comment on the evaluation form says, Id. Campbell's signature appears on the bottom of the document, along with the signatures of a manager and supervisor. Id. Campbell admits he signed a performance evaluation on or around April 26, 2017; however, he claims he never knowingly signed an evaluation stating that his safety or overall performance was less than acceptable. Campbell surmises that the document provided by Kraft Heinz "may have been altered."1 Pl.'s App. 8, ECF No. 26-4.
After reporting the injury to the plant's medical staff, Campbell was placed on light-duty work status. Campbell was evaluated by medical staff at the plant on several occasions over the next few weeks, and he reported increasing pain in his right hand and wrist. According to Campbell, the medical staff told him not to seek treatment from a physician; Kraft Heinz denies they did so and reports that, in any event, the medical staff at the plant are employed by a third-party contractor.
On May 18, 2017, John Fleming, the plant's sanitation manager, wrote an email to Rodney Warhank, the plant's associate human resources manager, stating, Def.'s App. 65–Warhank Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 21-3. Warhank reports, and Campbell concedes, that Fleming and Warhank then discussed Campbell's purported safety violations without mentioning the topic of workers' compensation. See Def.'s App. 62–Warhank Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, ECF No. 21-3; Pl.'s Resp.–Def.'s State. Facts Nos. 32-34, ECF No. 26-2. The next day, May 19, Fleming terminated Campbell and notified several Kraft Heinz employees about the termination. In response to a question from human resources employee Amy Matlick about why Campbell was terminated, Fleming replied, "Safety." Def.'s App. 67–Warhank Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 21-3. Matlick replied that she would "process termination for safety violation." Id. Several days later, on May 22, Culberson forwarded an email in which a nurse manager reported that Campbell missed an appointment; Culberson commented that Campbell "was fired due to many safety violations in his probation and now he has missed appointment for medical care for his burn." Def.'s App. 60–Culberson Decl. Ex. D, ECF No. 21-3. Campbell later testified at his workers' compensation deposition that he was not given a reason for why he was fired.
On May 10, 2019, Campbell filed a lawsuit against Kraft Heinz, several other Kraft Heinz companies, and several Kraft Heinz employees in the Iowa District Court for Scott County. Campbell's single-count petition claimed wrongful discharge under Iowa state law, alleging that Kraft terminated him for pursuing workers' compensation benefits. Campbell later dismissed the claim as to all the defendants except Kraft Heinz and Culberson. Kraft Heinz removed to this Court on June 12, 2019, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Campbell's joinder of Culberson, an Iowa resident, was fraudulent and could not, therefore, defeat diversity between Campbell, an Iowa resident, and Kraft Heinz, a Pennsylvania corporation.2 After Kraft Heinz filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, asking the Court to dismiss the claim against...
To continue reading
Request your trial