Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill
| Decision Date | 06 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C-01-4007-MWB.,C-01-4007-MWB. |
| Citation | 212 F.Supp.2d 960 |
| Parties | Patty ERICKSON-PUTTMANN, Plaintiff, v. Patrick GILL and Woodbury County, Iowa, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Paul D. Lundberg, Hellige, Lundberg, Meis, Erickson & Frey, Sioux City, IA, for plaintiff.
Jeffrey A. Sar, Baron, Sar, Goodwin, Gill & Lohr, Douglas L. Phillips, Klass Stoik Mugan Villone & Phillips, LLP, Sioux City, IA, for defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................962
A. Procedural Background ........................................962
B. Factual Background ...........................................964
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ..................................................966
A. Standards For Summary Judgment ...............................966
1. Requirements of Rule 56 ...................................967
2. The parties' burdens ......................................967
3. Summary judgment in employment discrimination cases .......968
B. Woodbury County's Motion For Summary Judgment ................969
1. The prompt remedial action requirement ....................970
2. Woodbury County's response ................................971
C. Patrick Gill's Motion For Summary Judgment ...................973
1. Iowa common law claims ....................................973
2. Sex discrimination claims .................................974
a. Title VII claim ........................................974
b. ICRA claim .............................................974
III. CONCLUSION ......................................................976
On February 1, 2001, plaintiff Patty Erickson-Puttmann filed this sex discrimination lawsuit against her employer, Woodbury County, Iowa, and Patrick Gill. Erickson-Puttmann alleges in her complaint that she was subjected to sexual harassment during her employment with Woodbury County from the harassing conduct of defendant Gill. Specifically, in Count I, Erickson-Puttmann alleges that she was subjected to sexual discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, 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 (ICRA), IOWA CODE Ch. 216. In Count II, Erickson-Puttmann alleges a state law claim for intentional interference with an employment relationship against defendant Gill and she alleges in Count III a state law claim against defendant Gill for abuse of process. Defendants filed answers to Erickson-Puttmann's complaint in which they deny all of these claims.
On January 2, 2002, defendants Woodbury County and Gill each filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, Woodbury County asserts that Erickson-Puttmann cannot establish a hostile work environment sexual discrimination claim because Woodbury took remedial action as extensive as Iowa law would permit. In his motion for summary judgment, Gill asserts that Erickson-Puttmann cannot establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII because he was not her employer. On January 14, 2002, defendant Gill filed an Amended Motion For Summary Judgment in which he seeks to have summary judgment granted in his favor on each of Erickson-Puttmann's claims. Specifically, Gill renews his assertion that Erickson-Puttmann cannot establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII because he was not her employer. He also contends that the ICRA does not allow for individual liability on the part of non-supervisory co-employees or co-employees without the authority over hiring and firing decisions. Gill further asserts that Erickson-Puttmann cannot make out a claim for intentional interference with an employment relationship against him because Erickson-Puttmann has suffered no adverse employment action. Finally, Gill contends that Erickson-Puttmann's state law claim against him for abuse of process must be dismissed because there is no evidence of any use of legal process by him. After obtaining an extension of time in which to respond to defendants' respective motions for summary judgment, Erickson-Puttmann filed timely resistances to both defendant Woodbury County's and Gill's respective motions for summary judgment on January 28, 2002. On February 14, 2002, after obtaining an extension of time, Erickson-Puttmann filed a timely response to defendant Gill's Amended Motion For Summary Judgment. In her response to defendant Gill's Motion For Summary Judgment, Erickson-Puttmann concedes that she is unable to make out Iowa common law claims for intentional interference with an employment relationship and abuse of process, and that summary judgment on Counts II and III is appropriate here. Defendant Gill then obtained an extension of time in which to file a reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment. He filed his reply brief on March 5, 2002.
Pursuant to the parties' requests, the court held oral arguments on defendants' respective motions for summary judgment on May 1, 2002. At the oral arguments, plaintiff Erickson-Puttmann was represented by Paul D. Lundberg of Hellige, Lundberg, Meis, Erickson & Frey, Sioux City Iowa. Defendant Woodbury County was represented by Douglas L. Phillips of Klass, Stoos, Stoik, Mugan, Villone & Phillips, L.L.P., Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant Gill was represented by Jeffrey A. Sar of Baron, Sar, Goodwin, Gill & Lohr, Sioux City, Iowa.
The court turns first to a discussion of the undisputed facts as shown by the record, then to the standards applicable to motions for summary judgment and, finally, to the legal analysis of whether either of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on any of the claims at issue in this litigation.
The following facts are either undisputed or viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff Erickson-Puttmann as the non-moving party. Patty Erickson-Puttmann is employed by Woodbury County as Social Services Coordinator. She reports directly to the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors ("the Board"). Defendant Patrick Gill is the Woodbury County Auditor/Recorder. The Board has budgetary authority over the county auditor/recorder. Defendant Gill had no authority over Erickson-Puttmann in connection with her employment. Erickson-Puttmann claims that over a period of three years, commencing in August of 1997, Gill harassed her and created a hostile work environment for her and several other female employees. Erickson-Puttmann contends that Gill used his "position of authority" to threaten her with arrest and prosecution, accusing her of interfering with official investigations, violation of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, and conflict of interest. Specifically, Erickson-Puttmann claims the following incidents of harassment by Gill occurred:
a. 8-9-97. Mr. Gill, with no justification in fact tells the Woodbury County Board of Supervisor's [sic] legal counsel that Plaintiff should be immediately terminated for interference with an ongoing investigation of grant funds and that Plaintiff should be prohibited from speaking with one of the members of the Board of Supervisors until the investigation is completed.
b. 12-22-98. Plaintiff was confronted at work by agents of the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning an investigation of grant funds and was accused of "withholding evidence" from this investigation. Defendant Gill was responsible for this confrontation and had no basis in fact for accusing Plaintiff of criminal acts.
c. 2-29-99. Defendant Gill informs the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors that Plaintiff has failed to comply with his request for information. Plaintiff demonstrates to the Board her compliance with Mr. Gill's request within his timelines. Defendant Gill continues to deny receiving the information and requires Plaintiff to comply a second time.
d. August 1999. Mr. Gill suggests that Plaintiff has proposed using mental health funds for restoration of the 8th floor of the Woodbury County Courthouse and publicly questions the legality of use of these funds. Neither the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors or Plaintiff had ever committed to the use of these funds for restoration purposes.
e. 11-19-99. Defendant Gill accuses Plaintiff of refusing to turn over a tape recording of a meeting and accuses Plaintiff of violating the Iowa Open Records Law.
f. 7-28-00. Defendant Gill, without justification in fact, accuses Plaintiff of withholding public documents and requests that an assistant Woodbury County attorney have Plaintiff arrested and have Plaintiff's office searched.
g. 10-3-00. In response to the filing of Plaintiff's complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, Defendant Gill, in a televised interview suggests that Plaintiff's complaint is the result of Defendant Gill's prior investigation of an alleged embezzlement of grant funds. By this statement Defendant Gill falsely accuses Plaintiff of involvement in embezzlement of public funds, without any justification in fact, and does so in retaliation for the filing of Plaintiff's civil rights complaint.
Complaint at ¶ 10. Defendant Gill has denied these allegations. Erickson-Puttmann was not fired, discharged or disciplined in connection with anything done by Gill. Gill neither filed a civil lawsuit against Erickson-Puttmann nor filed criminal charges against her.
Erickson-Puttmann had twice previously complained to members of the Board regarding Gill's conduct. Erickson-Puttmann complained once to Maurice Welte in 1998 and once to Larry Clausen in 1999. After Erickson-Puttmann complained to Clausen, he told Gill "[b]asically not to mess with our employees" and that if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.
...from certification.Leiberkneckt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 980 F.Supp. 300, 310 (N.D.Iowa 1997); accord Erickson–Puttmann v. Gill, 212 F.Supp.2d 960, 975 n. 6 (N.D.Iowa 2002); see Olympus Alum. Prod. v. Kehm Enters., Ltd., 930 F.Supp. 1295, 1309 n. 10 (N.D.Iowa 1996) (citing Rowson v. ......
-
Zimmer v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...of the current litigation and the possible prejudice to the litigants which may result from certification. Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill, 212 F.Supp.2d 960, 975 n. 6 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (citations With regard to the first three factors articulated in Erickson-Puttmann, the Court concludes it has am......
-
Krambeck v. Children and Families of Iowa, Inc.
...any such issue would likely be of a limited nature and could be certified to the Iowa Supreme Court. See Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill, 212 F.Supp.2d 960, 975-76 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (finding no individual liability for nonsupervisory employees under the ICRA without certifying question to Iowa Supr......
-
Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc.
...employment actions involving the plaintiff, relying on federal caselaw construing section 216.6. See, e.g. , Erickson–Puttmann v. Gill , 212 F. Supp. 2d 960, 976 (N.D. Iowa 2002) ("The Nelson decision, and the Iowa Supreme Court's decisions underlying it, are in keeping with the express lan......