Eaton v. Mont. Silversmiths
| Decision Date | 28 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | CV 18-65-BLG-SPW-TJC |
| Parties | ROBERT A. EATON, Plaintiff, v. MONTANA SILVERSMITHS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Montana Silversmiths' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Robert A. Eaton's remaining claims (Counts 1-6)[1] in the Fourth Amended Complaint. (Doc 94.) Also pending is Eaton's “Motion to Extend Motion to Compel Deadline, ” and Request for Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 97, 109.) The motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court orders that Montana Silversmiths' motion (Doc. 94.) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Eaton's motions for extension and for hearing will be DENIED.
I. Background[2]
Eaton obtained a Bachelor of Fine Arts in metalsmithing from Montana State University in 2000. (Doc. 105 at ¶ 1.) Montana Silversmiths in Columbus, Montana, hired Eaton on May 13, 2013, into the apprentice program as a designer/engraver when he was 39 years old. (Doc. 105 at ¶¶ 2-3.) Eaton worked for Montana Silversmiths in their engraving department until his termination on June 15, 2017. (Doc. 105 at ¶ 52.)
In July 2015, Eaton met with Colette Schlehuber of Montana Silversmiths' Human Resources Department to discuss issues he perceived in the engraving department, including the use of racial slurs and the sexual harassment of a fellow female employee. (Docs. 41 at ¶ 6; 96-19 at 6-7 19:17-21:14.) In keeping with Eaton's request to keep the complaint confidential, Schlehuber approached the female employee to ask if the work environment made her feel uncomfortable, but she admittedly did not conduct an “official” internal investigation. (Doc. 96-19 at 6-7: 19:17-21:14.) The female employee told Schlehuber that she enjoyed being in the engraving department and nothing in the work environment made her uncomfortable. (Id.) The employee later confirmed in her deposition testimony that she was not uncomfortable with her work environment. (Doc 96-24 at 4: 9:12 15.) Other than Eaton's own reports of sexual harassment, no other similar reports were made to management. (Doc. 96-19 at 29: 112:18 - 113:3.) It appears that no further investigation or follow-up was conducted with respect to Eaton's 2015 report.
Eaton, like other Montana Silversmiths' employees, was subject to annual performance evaluations. Montana Silversmiths conducted Eaton's 2017 performance review on April 4, 2017. (Doc. 105 at ¶ 13; see Doc. 96-3 at 7-8.) Eaton's direct supervisor, Justin Deacon, noted two areas of deficient performance in which Eaton “Does Not Consistently Meet Expectations” - interaction with coworkers and resolves conflicts in an appropriate manner. (Docs. 96-3 at 7-8; 10510 at 35.) As to the first area, Deacon commented: “[a]t times creates unwelcoming environment in regards to [Deacon's son] Travis while at the same time interacting well with Rick and Brian.” (Id. at 7; 105-10 at 35.) In the second area, Deacon reported that Eaton “[s]idesteps proper reporting of concerns outside of management hierarchy.” (Id.) Eaton was also found to significantly exceed expectations in the area of being a “[s]elf starter, shows resourcefulness, ” for which Deacon commented that he was a “very hard worker, always on task.” (Id.) In sum, Eaton's total appraisal grade was 2.70, placing him between the ratings for “Exceeds Expectations” (2.0) and “Meets Expectations” (3.0). (Id. at 8; 105-10 at 36.)
Eaton disputes that the negative ratings were warranted. He points out that Deacon did not want to include the comments relative to Travis. It was included at the insistence of Lance Neirby, Montana Silversmiths' Vice President of Operations. (See Doc. 105-4 at 43: 28:17-21; at 44: 29:7-17; at 53: 65:19 - 66:22.)
Additionally, the criticism of Eaton “sidestepping” proper reporting channels appears to be contrary to Montana Silversmiths' employee handbook. The 2015 Employee Handbook directs individuals with a complaint to “discuss their concerns with their immediate supervisor, Human Resources or any member of management.” (Doc. 105-8 at 8.) The handbook also “has a policy that encourages any employee to speak to their supervisor, manager or human resource personnel at any time for any reason.” (Id. at 21.)
Eaton met with Neirby later in the day on April 4 to discuss the evaluation and other issues in the workplace. (Docs. 41 at ¶ 8; 96-4 at 2; 105-10 at 39.) During the meeting, Eaton raised several issues, included nepotism, sexual harassment, and various observations of co-workers' personal and inter-personal behaviors and relationships. (Docs. 96-4 at 2-3; 105-10 at 39-40.)
The next day, April 5, Neirby, Deacon, and Eaton met to discuss the performance review and the issues Eaton raised the previous day. (Doc. 105 at ¶ 15.) Either before or during the meeting Neirby changed the language of the evaluation in the category of “[interaction with co-workers” from focusing on “Travis” to state that a “[c]hallenging relationship exists between employee and direct supervisor.” (Doc. 96-3 at 9.) Thus, the criticism shifted from a co-employee to Eaton's relationship with his supervisor, Justin Deacon. The rating for that category remained at the lowest possible rating. The revised performance evaluation also deleted a comment in the original evaluation, which read “Robert will not acknowledge Travis's existence.” (Doc. 96-3 at 8, 10.)
By all accounts, the April 5 meeting was contentious. Neirby documented the meeting in an email to Schlehuber in human resources, in which he described Eaton as being “very agitated.” (Docs. 96-4 at 2; 105-10 at 41-42.) Neirby explained that he tried to focus Eaton on better communication with Deacon but Eaton “was so stressed out and agitated.” (Id.; see Doc. 96-5.)
Eaton, on the other hand, avers that he felt Neirby mocked him during the meeting and pushed him to defend himself for his complaints of nepotism and sexual harassment, asking: “what are [you] going to do then, what are you going to do then?” (Doc. 103-2 at ¶ 64.) Eaton attests that he responded, “You guys act like I am going to bring a bomb, that IS NOT what I'm saying, I am saying I am going to have to get a lawyer.” (Id.) (emphasis in original).
At the conclusion of the meeting, Neirby and the management team decided to send Eaton “home for the remainder of the week with pay to allow for a cooling-off period.” (Doc. 96-20 at 22: 84:19-21.) Neirby then reported the incident to the Stillwater County, Montana Sheriffs Office at 11:24 a.m., the report of which states:
Per 32-2 Lance notified of a problem that arised [sic] with an employee this morning and was sent home for the rest of the week. Does not fore see [sic] any further problems but wanted us to be aware of the employee and the situation[.]
(Docs. 105 at ¶ 24; 105-12 at 3.)
Eaton met with Schlehuber from human resources following the meeting. Eaton relayed that he felt as though he was being retaliated against for his complaints, and stated he was going to go home and call his lawyer and the EEOC. (Doc. 96-5.) Schlehuber advised Eaton he was not being retaliated against, and instead fashioned his temporary dismissal as “a time for adjustment and time for him to think about how we all need to work together going forward.” (Id.)
Eaton went home on April 5 as directed and composed a “grievance complaint.” (Docs. 96-6; 105-7 at 5-8.) He hand-delivered the grievance on April 10, the day he returned to work after the “cooling off period.” (Doc. 105 at ¶ 27.) The grievance detailed Eaton's view of the April 5th meeting, including the changes to his performance evaluation, nepotism and preferential treatment between Justin and Travis Deacon (), and his belief that the criticism for sidestepping proper reporting channels was contrary to the process laid out in the employee handbook. (Doc. 96-6 at 1-2.)
After Eaton submitted his grievance, Neirby sent an email to Schlehuber on April 13 “to further document points of concern during the discussion between Robert, [Deacon] and myself outlined in my Wednesday April 5th email.” (Docs. 96-4 at 1; 105-10 at 41.) Neirby characterized Eaton as “extremely angry, ” “hyper focused, red faced and his body posture was aggressive with clinched hands and was sitting forward in his chair in a dominating stance, ” and that he “yelled multiple times and told [Deacon] that he F--D him from the beginning and never helped him at all.” (Id.) Neirby also recounted Eaton as saying, “‘Everyone thinks I am going to go postal or bring in a bomb' followed by I have a lot of thinking to do and something like T won't bring in a bomb and I have talked to a lawyer.'” [S7c] (Id.) Neirby reported that he and Deacon were “shocked at the paranoid manner in which Robert was yelling and talking.” (Id.) Among other things, Neirby expressed that his (Id.)
The same day, April 13, Montana Silversmiths hired Associated Employers of Montana (“AEM”) to investigate the allegations contained in Eaton's grievance letter. (Docs. 41 at ¶ 13; 105 at ¶ 28.) Montana Silversmiths state that neither its' nor AEM's investigation corroborated any of Eaton's complaints of sexual or racial harassment. (Doc. 96 at ¶¶ 11, 30.) Eaton disputes the integrity of both investigations.
Shortly after returning to work, Eaton took scheduled medical leave on April 14 for carpal tunnel release surgery. (Docs. 41 at ¶ 14; 105 at ¶ 42.) Schlehuber and Eaton subsequently exchanged communications regarding his return...
To continue reading
Request your trial