Fender v. Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Serv.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-4035-SAC.,97-4035-SAC. |
| Citation | 168 F.Supp.2d 1216 |
| Parties | Sharon Faye FENDER, Plaintiff, v. State of KANSAS SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES; and Fran Seymour-Hunter, in her individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Pantaleon Florez, Jr., Florez & Frost, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff.
Bruce A. Roby, Waggener, Arterburn & Standiferd, Jane Kelly Coates, Office of the General Counsel, Deborah Purce-Jones, Topeka, KS, for Defendants.
This case comes before the court on the motion of defendant, State of Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services ("SRS"), for summary judgment, and on the separate motion of defendant Fran Seymour-Hunter for summary judgment. Plaintiff has brought claims against SRS under Title VII, 42 U.S.C § 2000e et seq., alleging a religiously hostile work environment, and against individual defendant Fran Seymour-Hunter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a First Amendment violation arising out of her enforcement of the employer's dress code. SRS's motion for summary judgment alleges that plaintiff's Title VII action is, among other matters, contractually barred, while Seymour-Hunter alleges entitlement to qualified immunity. Accordingly, neither motion addresses the merits, or lack thereof, of plaintiff's Title VII case.
The following facts are uncontroverted. Immaterial facts and factual averments not properly supported by the record are omitted.
Facts relevant to SRS's motion
Plaintiff is a reverend and member of the Universal Life Church, and is affiliated with the WICCA religion. Plaintiff was employed as a mental health trainee at Topeka State Hospital ("TSH") from February 1995 until March 1997, when she was laid off from employment due to closure of the hospital. (Pretrial Order Stipulation, Dk. 60, p. 13). Plaintiff alleges that in mid-October of 1995, she expressed concerns about the posting of "offensive and disparaging" materials throughout the hospital, which consisted of traditional "Halloween" postings "depicting witches as ugly and worthy of fear." (Dk.60, p. 3).
Plaintiff sent a letter in mid-October to TSH Superintendent Proctor, requesting that all displays of "ugly" witches be removed because they were offensive to plaintiff's religion. Plaintiff received a response from Superintendent Proctor, stating that the postings were not in violation of the law relative to religion in the work-place, and denying plaintiff's request. Plaintiff's Kansas Human Rights Commission ("KHRC") charge alleges that plaintiff's request was denied because of her religion, but the Pretrial Order alleges that the postings created an "offensive and hostile working environment in violation of Title VII." (Dk.60, p. 4.) This event is the sole basis for plaintiff's Title VII claim against SRS.1
On March 21, 1996, the plaintiff was given a notice of termination from her employment with TSH.2 By plaintiff's request, negotiations were held and a settlement agreement was entered into on April 25, 1996 by which plaintiff was "reinstated." The settlement agreement provided, among other matters, that TSH agreed to withdraw certain items from plaintiff's personnel file and nursing files, not to retaliate against plaintiff for any reports she made, and to "pay [plaintiff] wages for the period from March 21, 1996 through April 26, 1996 and that benefits for the same period shall accrue accordingly." (Dk. 51, Attachment III).
Plaintiff agreed therein, among other matters, "not to pursue any further course either in law or equity arising from her employment at TSH," and "to release and discharge TSH from any and all claims which she may have arising out of incidents relating to her employment at TSH up to the date of this agreement." (Id.) Both parties agreed that "in the event of a breach of this agreement [plaintiff] shall have the right to pursue all claims extinguished by this release to the full interest allowed by law and equity." (Id.)
Plaintiff was paid wages, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in an amount $50 less than she believes she would have earned had she worked from March 21, 1996 through April 26, 1996 and earned a shift differential. Plaintiff claims this wage deficiency constitutes a breach of contract, permitting her to pursue her otherwise barred Title VII claims against SRS.
Defendant Seymour-Hunter worked at TSH for almost twelve years, and at all times relevant hereto was a program nurse in the building in which plaintiff worked. As such, Seymour-Hunter not only served as overall nursing supervisor for the nursing functions, but also had supervisory responsibility over the plaintiff.
At all relevant times, TSH had a dress code applicable to all of its departments, which applied to plaintiff. The stated purpose and policy of the dress code was:
to provide standards for appropriate dress and grooming which project a positive and professional image of the hospital, address safety issues and provide role models for consumers. The policy emphasizes the importance of the appearance of staff in the overall reputation and impression of the hospital and reflects on the fine work done by the employees.
(Dk.45, Exh. A, p. 1.) Seymour-Hunter was not involved in the promulgation or development of this dress code policy, but was responsible for enforcing it as to those employees she supervised.
One of the specific standards included in the policy is that "T-shirts must be in good condition and free from graphics or slogans which are obscene and/or demeaning or offensive to others." (Id.) Plaintiff heard of the dress code policy during new employee orientation, and received and read the dress code policy prior to November 18, 1996.
On November 18, 1996, the director of nursing informed Seymour-Hunter that plaintiff had objected to a shirt worn by Mr. Sanders which had Christian symbols or slogans on it, and that Mr. Sanders had complained about a shirt plaintiff had been wearing.3 The director of nursing directed Seymour-Hunter to meet with plaintiff and Mr. Sanders to remind them of the dress code policy.
Seymour-Hunter met with plaintiff and Mr. Sanders that same day regarding the issue of shirts displaying religious symbols or sayings. ). During the meeting, Seymour-Hunter reminded plaintiff and Mr. Sanders of the dress code policy regarding objectionable or offensive clothing, and told both employees that they should refrain from wearing items of clothing that others had found or might find objectionable or offensive, including those with a religious message. (Id; See Dk. 48, Seymour-Hunter Depo., p. 36).
Seymour-Hunter did not tell plaintiff or Mr. Sanders during the meeting of the right to appeal, but plaintiff admits she had previously read the policy, which states:
An employee ... desiring an ongoing waiver of any standard in this policy may do so by making a written request to the Superintendent, through the Personnel Director. This request should state what standard they would like waived and a justification.
(Dk. 45, Exh. A., p. 3). Plaintiff saw no need to request a waiver because she did not consider the shirt she had worn to be offensive or obscene. (Dk. 45, Exh. D., Plaintiff's depo. p. 362-364). Plaintiff's religious beliefs do not require her to dress in a certain manner except during certain rituals and ceremonies which do not take place at work.
A court grants a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if a genuine issue of material fact does not exist and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court is to determine "whether there is the need for a trial — whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, (1986). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will ... preclude summary judgment." Id. There are no genuine issues for trial if the record taken as a whole would not persuade a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indust. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). "[T]here are cases where the evidence is so weak that the case does not raise a genuine issue of fact." Burnette v. Dow Chemical Co., 849 F.2d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir.1988).
The initial burden is with the movant to "point to those portions of the record that demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact given the relevant substantive law." Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1013, 113 S.Ct. 635, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992). If this burden is met, the nonmovant must "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial as to elements essential to" the nonmovant's claim or position. Martin v. Nannie and Newborns, Inc., 3 F.3d 1410, 1414 (10th Cir.1993) (citations omitted). The non-movant's burden is more than a simple showing of "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, it requires "`present[ing] sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for a jury to return a verdict in that party's favor.'" Thomas v. International Business Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 484 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Bacchus Industries, Inc. v. Arvin Industries, Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir.1991)).
The court views the evidence of record and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. A party relying on only conclusory allegations cannot defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. White v. York...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quarrie v. Wells
...(outlining a detailed plan of monitoring and reporting to ensure compliance with settlement agreement); Fender v. Kan. Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1221-22 (D. Kan. 2001) (analyzing defendant's compliance with settlement agreement). The burden was on Defendant NMT to establis......