Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. C11–2007.,C11–2007. |
| Citation | 882 F.Supp.2d 1083 |
| Parties | Rachel CLAY, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Bryan Patrick O'Neill, Leonard Edwin Bates, Newkirk Law Firm PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
Charles Wayne Showalter, Natalie K. Ditmars, Paul David Burns, Bradley & Riley, PC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (docket number 17) filed by Defendant Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. on March 16, 2012; the Resistance (docket number 21) filed by Plaintiff Rachel Clay on April 20, 2012; and the Reply (docket number 28) filed by Defendant on May 7, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.c, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be decided without oral argument.
Plaintiff Rachel Clay (“Clay”) timely filed charges of race discrimination in employment against Defendant Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. (“CBE”) with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (“ICRC”). The charges were also cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On July 23, 2008, the ICRC administratively closed Clay's complaint, finding no probable cause warranting farther investigation of her claims of discrimination. On September 23, 2008, the EEOC adopted the findings of the ICRC, and also administratively closed Clay's complaint.
On March 1, 2011, Clay filed a Complaint and Jury Demand (docket number 2) alleging race discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I). On April 8, 2011, CBE filed an Answer and Defenses (docket number 5), generally denying the material allegations contained in the complaint, and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On May 6, 2011, both parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Trial is scheduled before the undersigned on June 25, 2012. Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (docket number 17) on March 16, 2012.
CBE is an Iowa corporation with its home office in Cedar Falls, Iowa. CBE engages in the business of debt collection for various industries and organizations nationwide. In March 2005, Clay began employment with CBE as a Front Line Collector. She also held positions as a PPA Collector and Quality Control Specialist. In February 2008, Clay resigned from employment with CBE for “personal reasons.” 1 During her employment, Clay sought several promotions which she did not get. Clay was also disciplined on various occasions during her employment at CBE.
A. Promotions Sought by Clay
On January 16, 2006, Clay applied for the position of Collection Trainer. Seventeen people applied for the position. Clay was not selected for a second interview. Kelli Krueger, manager of training and recruiting, explained to Clay:
that the individuals that were selected to move to the next stage had more first line collection experience and were all currently in a leadership position (either a team lead or a manger) [ sic ]. The feedback I gave [Clay] for future interviews is to obtain more front line collection experience and strive to move into a leadership position starting with team lead. I also explained [to] her that if she is really interested in this position to be more clear on that during the initial interview. During this interview she did talk a lot about why she wanted ‘out’ of her current position but didn't talk about why this training position was what she really ‘wanted’ to do.
CBE's Appendix (docket number 17–4) at 116. Nate Sorenson was selected to fill the position of Collection Trainer. In answers to questions from the ICRC, CBE stated that Sorenson was selected for the position because he:
was working as a team lead in the portfolio that he would be training. As a team lead his duties included training and developing employees who were non-performers. This is a skill that is extremely important for a trainer and he had proven ability to do this successfully. He had only been with CBE for seven (7) months but he was in a front line collector role since his start date and had shown a progression of growth during that period of time.
CBE's Appendix (docket number 17–4) at 106.
To continue reading
Request your trial