Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Amer. H. Prod., No. C 00-3079-MWB (N.D. Iowa 4/4/2001)
| Decision Date | 04 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. C 00-3079-MWB.,C 00-3079-MWB. |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and CAROLYN PENNY LEWIS and JOYCE GITCH, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., d/b/a FORT DODGE ANIMAL HEALTH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
One of the most unique features of the American legal system is the historic and continued emphasis on process as well as substance. Thus, in our system, justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done — it is not enough that the result is "right" if the process to arrive at that result is not "fair." Perhaps more than any other characteristic, this abiding concern for process separates our legal system from the systems in most of the other nations around the world. In this case, what started out as consideration of a straightforward Motion for Partial Dismissal raising serious and probing legal questions has now morphed into consideration of questions of process that must be resolved before the serious merits of the motion can be addressed.
In this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks "to correct" unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation by defendant American Home Products Corporation, doing business as Fort Dodge Animal Health (Home Products), and "to make whole" five individuals who have allegedly suffered from such unlawful employment practices. The EEOC asserts sexual harassment claims on behalf of Patty L. Parker, Amy Kolacia, and Carolyn Penny Lewis, and retaliation claims on behalf of Parker, Craig Wood, and Joyce Gitch. Lewis and Gitch have intervened in the action to assert their own claims, pursuant to Title VII and Iowa common law, against Home Products.
This matter comes before the court pursuant to the December 6, 2000, motion by defendant Home Products for partial dismissal of the EEOC's complaint as to claims for relief for Craig Wood and Joyce Gitch. Home Products contends that these two individuals have released Home Products from all of their individual claims for relief, so that the EEOC cannot now recover on their claims on their behalf. Home Products argues further that relief on Mr. Wood's claims is subject to issue preclusion as the result of a judgment, in an action for declaratory and other relief brought by Mr. Wood in Iowa District Court, upholding the validity of his release and denying rescission of that agreement. The EEOC and the intervening plaintiffs separately resisted the motion to dismiss and Home Products filed separate replies to their resistances.1
The court heard oral arguments on Home Products' motion for partial dismissal on March 27, 2001. The EEOC was represented by Jean P. Kamp, Regional Attorney, from the EEOC's Milwaukee District Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who argued the motion, and Laurie Vasichek, Trial Attorney, from the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Intervening plaintiffs Carolyn Penny Lewis and Joyce Gitch were represented by Jeane W. Pearson of Price & Pearson in Fort Dodge, Iowa. Defendant Home Products was represented by Neven J. Mulholland of Johnson, Erb, Bice, Kramer, Good & Mulholland, P.C., in Fort Dodge, Iowa, and Mark S. Dichter of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The briefs of the parties were especially well-crafted and the oral arguments were spirited and very informative.
In the course of those oral arguments, Home Products argued, inter alia, that, because it had attached various documents to its motion to dismiss, the motion was "automatically" converted into a motion for summary judgment. Home Products argued further that the EEOC's response had failed to generate genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment in Home Products' favor on Home Products' contentions that Wood's and Gitch's releases are valid and that issue preclusion bars relitigation of the scope and validity of Wood's release. The EEOC responded, in part, that it had been the first party to suggest that Home Products' "Motion for Partial Dismissal" should more properly be treated as a motion for summary judgment, by raising the issue in its resistance brief, with the caveat that discovery should be permitted pursuant to Rule 56(f) before the court ruled on the motion as a motion for summary judgment. The EEOC contended that only in its reply brief had Home Products adopted the EEOC's position that the motion should be treated as one for summary judgment, thus preventing the EEOC from offering any substantive affidavits that could generate genuine issues of material fact on pertinent issues. The EEOC argued that it "had been had" by Home Products' assertion of a motion denominated as a motion to dismiss, to which the EEOC had responded appropriately, followed by Home Products' attack upon the EEOC's response on the ground that the response did not satisfy the requirements to defeat a motion for summary judgment. In reply, Home Products argued that permitting any discovery or further delay in disposition of its motion to dismiss would vitiate the very purposes of the releases signed by Wood and Gitch, that the releases are valid on their faces, and that the EEOC's counsel's declaration in support of a Rule 56(f) continuance failed to demonstrate that any evidence might exist to support a claim that the releases are invalid.
In its "Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiff's Complaint," Home Products relied on several exhibits attached to its supporting memorandum. The exhibits attached to the memorandum include, as Exhibit A, a January 12, 1999, letter from Home Products to Mr. Wood outlining the terms of an enhanced separation package; as Exhibit B, a "General Release" signed by Mr. Wood and dated January 14, 1999; as Exhibit C, a February 15, 1999, letter from Home Products to Ms. Gitch outlining the terms of an enhanced separation package; as Exhibit D, a "General Release" signed by Ms. Gitch and dated February 17, 1999; as Exhibit E, Mr. Wood's First Amended Petition For Declaratory Judgment, Decree And Other Relief in his action in Iowa District Court for Webster County; and, as Exhibit F, an Order, Judgment, And Decree in Mr. Wood's state-court action, dated December 30, 2000. None of these documents was attached to or mentioned in the EEOC's Complaint.
In its Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiff's Complaint, the EEOC argued as follows:
[Home Products] has filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Complaint, without specifying whether the Motion is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Indeed, it cannot and does not argue that the allegations do not state a claim for violation of Title VII which would entitle EEOC to relief. Despite its Motion for Partial Dismissal, [Home Products] has, in fact, filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the allegations of the Complaint. EEOC therefore submits that the Motion should be treated as one for partial summary judgment with respect to [Home Products'] Affirmative Defenses 1 (release) and 2 (issue preclusion), in accord with Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), and that the Motion should be denied pending discovery, in accord with Rule 56(f).
Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiff's Complaint (EEOC's Resistance Brief) at 2. Thus, the EEOC was the first party to raise the issue of whether or not Home Products' motion to dismiss should properly be treated as a motion for summary judgment.
However, the EEOC also asserted that, if the motion was treated as one for summary judgment, some discovery was required before the EEOC could properly resist the motion. In addition to the assertion in the body of its resistance brief, quoted above, that Home Products' "motion should be denied pending discovery, in accord with Rule 56(f)," the EEOC made the following additional statements in a footnote:
Because [Home Products] has brought its Motion under Rule 12, and has not submitted any Statement of Undisputed Facts pursuant to Rule 56, EEOC states the facts which it expects to prove, rather than those which it can presently support from the record of discovery. A Declaration, in accord with Rule 56(f) is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit A.
Id. at 2 n. 1. The EEOC's Declaration in support of a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f), after identifying the declarant as an attorney representing the EEOC, avers the following:
2. No discovery has yet been had in the case.
3. I believe that the evidence developed during discovery will demonstrate:
a. That Wood and Gitch were terminated in retaliation for their opposition to Dave Hanlon's sexual harassment of female employees at [Home Products].
b. That the releases signed by Wood and by Gitch were not knowing and voluntary.
Declaration of Jean P. Kamp, 1-2.
In its reply to the EEOC's resistance, Home Products argued that its Motion for Partial Dismissal "should be granted pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Defendant's Reply Memorandum In Further Support Of Its Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Plaintiff's Complaint (Home Products' Reply To EEOC's Resistance) at 2. Home Products contended further, Id. at 2 n. 1. Home Products then identified the standards for summary judgment and argued the application of those standards to the record and the EEOC's response, contending that summary judgment in Home Products' favor was appropriate, without discovery or further delay. Thus, Home Products has now adopted the EEOC's view that...
To continue reading
Request your trial