Christensen v. Cargill, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. C14-4121-MWB,C14-4121-MWB
• Parties: JAMIE LEE CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff, v. CARGILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and MARK STRUVE, Individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

JAMIE LEE CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff, v. CARGILL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and MARK STRUVE, Individually, Defendants.

No. C14-4121-MWB

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

September 30, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................. 2

A. Factual Background ............................................................... 2

B. Procedural Background ........................................................... 6

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 8

A. Standards For Motions To Dismiss .............................................. 8

B. Hostile Work Environment Claims ............................................ 10

1. Requirements for hostile work environment claim ................. 10

2. Christensen's sexually hostile work environment claim ........................................................................ 12

a. Limitations period ................................................ 12

b. Continuing violation ............................................. 15

c. Merits of Christensen's claim ................................. 18

C. Claims Against Struve In His Individual Capacity ......................... 18

1. Sexual Discrimination ................................................... 18

2. Retaliation ................................................................. 20

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 22

Plaintiff, a former soybean origination merchant, alleges that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216. The defendants—a grain trading corporation and a grain trader employee—have moved to dismiss some of plaintiff's claims. Thus, I must determine whether plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the challenged claims.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

"When ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Thus, the factual background to the pending motion to dismiss must be drawn from the factual allegations in plaintiff Jamie Lee Christensen's Complaint, unless other matters are also incorporated by reference, integral to her claims, subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, or in the record of the case. Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 5B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)). In this case, Christensen attached to her Complaint her Iowa Civil Rights Commission Complaint Form, a timeline of events, as well as a right to sue letter she received from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Thus, the factual background presented, here, is based on Christensen's allegations in her Complaint and the attached documents.

Plaintiff Jamie Lee Christensen is a resident of Plymouth County, Iowa. Defendant Cargill, Inc. ("Cargill") is a Delaware Corporation licensed to do business inIowa and doing business in Woodbury County, Iowa. Defendant Mark Struve ("Struve") is a resident of Woodbury County, Iowa, and an employee of Cargill.

On October 28, 1993, Christensen was hired by Cargill as a soybean origination merchant. At some unspecified time in 2008, Struve made sexual advances toward her while they were on a business trip. Christensen rejected Struve's advances. Christensen explains that the following occurred:

Cargill sent Mark and me to a celebration event where other merchants from around the U.S., who were also responsible for the success, also attended. Normally after the day's events ended, individuals attending would go to the hotel bar, to catch up with each other, since we rarely got time to see each other. I don't remember the circumstances, but as a group we decided to go back to my hotel room for some drinks. After a couple drinks people started calling it a night, leaving Rich Berg, Mark Struve and myself in my room. Rich said he was going to bed and I stated I needed to do the same. He left and at that point I asked Mark to leave also. He asked me if I could rub his neck for a minute because it was hurting him, I said that's fine but then you have to go.

After I rubbed his neck, he asked if I wanted my neck rubbed, I said no I want you to leave. He lay back on the bed, I thought he had passed out, so I tried to wake him by pulling his arms, but couldn't get him to move. I started pushing him and telling him he needed to get up and go to his room. He asked if he could just stay in my room and I replied no. I told him to again leave and told him to get out or to give me his room key so I could sleep there, but I wasn't staying in the same room with him. He refused to give me his room key, so I told him I was going to get Rich or someone from the hotel to get him out of my room. Which at that point, he immediately got up, said he was sorry and left. I didn't think anything of it because nothing like this ever happened before.

The next day nothing was said about what had happened the night before, everything seemed normal, until we were on our way home from the airport. Mark was driving, we were around Missouri Valley, when he started asking me whether I was attracted to him, had I ever thought about him and I sexually together, I told him no, he was my friend, I was married, he was married, we both had kids, I liked him as a friend, but that was it. He said he knew, but if we both weren't married, would I be attracted to him or go out with him. He then made the comment that he thought about it, he thought I would be crazy in bed and we would have great sex. I told him it didn't matter, we were both married and I don't mess around and it wasn't going to happen. I can't remember what was said after that, but I remember telling him at that time, that no matter what he said it, would never happen, even if we were both single, because I don't date or sleep with anyone at work, so just drop it. We didn't talk much after that for the balance of the car ride and the topic of discussion never came back up.

Complaint Ex. D, Christensen's Timeline at 1.

In the following months, Christensen's job responsibilities changed and Struve frequently belittled and reprimanded Christensen in front of peers more often, sometimes multiple times in a day. As Christensen explains:

My next review, my job description changed, I was told I would no longer be managing the Vistive program at Sioux City, I asked why or how it was decided and Jim said Mark and he felt the change would be good for my career development. (I pleaded with Jim not to change my job because I loved the program, took ownership in my job, had embraced the program when no one ever wanted it, Mark and Eric both thought it was just another specialty program that would never make it and commented often that they thought I was wasting my time & effort trying to continue to make the program successful). I was told from Jim, I needed to be ateam player, train Eric and let someone else "shine" and embrace "Discuss, Decide and Support" their decision. I went to Mark, pleading with Mark to talk to Jim about their decision and to please change their decision, but Mark just looked disgusted with me, I can't remember if anything was said after that, because I was still in shock over the decision.

After creating training manual, over 40+ hours of training, was constantly blamed for not providing adequate training to Eric, bought [sic] back into program only when problems occurred to clean them up, told they occurred because of my failure to train Eric properly and told it was the success of the team. (Happened 3 times)

Denied training on my new role from Mark, manager told me I needed to show the initiative and complete my own training because Mark didn't have time, I controlled my own destination [sic], and I had received more important title & raise but nothing really changed, Mark would make all the decisions[.]

Complaint Ex. D, Christensen's Timeline at 2.

In 2008, because of Struve's actions against her, Christensen chose to find another position within Cargill at a different location. Approximately two years after Christensen changed her position and work location within Cargill, Struve was promoted to a position within Christensen's region. "Soon after Struve received his promotion, the retaliation, bullying and harassment began again making Christensen's work environment hostile." Complaint at ¶ 14(g). In February 2013, Christensen told Doug Fjelland, Facility Manager, that she believed Struve was retaliating, harassing, and bullying her. Christensen told Fjelland about Struve's sexual advances toward her that had occurred in 2008.

"In March 2013, Christensen was requested to share her story with HR along with details of the retaliation and harassment which Christensen believed was occurring andthe individuals [sic] names who could collaborate her allegations." Complaint at ¶ 14(j). Christensen did not receive any follow up after her conversation with human resources and "the retaliation and harassment continued." Complaint at ¶ 14(j). On November 1, 2013, Christensen turned in her resignation after 20 years of employment at Cargill.

Following her resignation, Christensen was told that her previous conversation with human resources had resulted in "no follow up and an investigation was then being opened." Complaint at ¶ 14(l). Christensen was asked to continue in her job while the investigation was taking place. She was asked to provide details of both past and current...