Garang v. Smithfield Farmland Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. C18-4082-LTS,C18-4082-LTS |
| Parties | John GARANG, Chol Abiet, and Mark Mitchell, Plaintiffs, v. SMITHFIELD FARMLAND CORP., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Melissa Carol Hasso, Emily Elaine Wilson, Sherinian and Hasso Law Firm, Des Moines, IA, Mark D. Sherinian, Sherinian & Hasso Law Firm, West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.
Jayde Ashford Brown, Amber Michelle Rogers, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Dallas, TX, Kenneth M Wentz, III, Jackson Lewis PC, Omaha, NE, for Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. RELEVANT FACTS...1080
IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS...1082
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 38) for summary judgment by defendants Smithfield Farmland Corp. (Smithfield),1 Miguel Bautista and Becky Jacobsen. Plaintiffs John Garang, Chol Abiet and Mark Mitchell have filed a resistance (Doc. No. 40) and requested oral argument, and defendants have replied (Doc. No. 47). I find that oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 7(c).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiffs filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) on September 18, 2018, asserting claims of (1) discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Chapter 216 (ICRA), (2) discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and (3) retaliation in violation of the ICRA.2 Plaintiffs invoke the court's federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, along with supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
All three plaintiffs filed administrative complaints with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) alleging that the individual defendants either discriminated against them or allowed the alleged discrimination to continue. The ICRC issued Right-To-Sue Letters for each plaintiff on June 28, 2018, advising them that they had 90 days to commence judicial proceedings. Plaintiffs then filed their complaint in this court on September 18, 2018. Doc. No. 1.
The defendants filed an answer (Doc. No. 5) and a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6). I denied (Doc. No. 25) the motion to dismiss on July 10, 2019. The defendants then filed the current motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 38) on October 18, 2019.
III. RELEVANT FACTS
Smithfield owns and operates a meatpacking facility in Denison, Iowa, where the plaintiffs are, or were, employed as production line workers. Defendants Bautista and Jacobsen are, respectively, Superintendent and Human Resources (HR) Manager at Smithfield's Denison facility. Plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to a variety of discriminatory practices based on their race and national origin during their time at Smithfield. According to the complaint, Garang and Abiet are Black and South Sudanese while Mitchell is Black and Jamaican. Doc. No. 1 at 3.
Although the plaintiffs shared some similar experiences at Smithfield, many of their factual allegations and claims are unique and independent. Therefore, I will address material facts and allegations separately by plaintiff. Additional facts not addressed here will be addressed further below, as necessary.
Garang began his employment with Smithfield on March 10, 2010. He claims that he experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at Smithfield almost daily. He worked at Smithfield until his employment was terminated in June 2016.
Garang claims that he was subjected to race and national origin discrimination in relation to bathroom breaks. Smithfield's bathroom break policy requires employees, except in the case of emergencies, to receive permission from a utility worker (known as a "red hat") before leaving the production line. There are limited red hats on each production line, so the number of employees who can take a bathroom break at one time is limited. Garang claims that red hats3 frequently delayed, or outright denied, his requests for breaks and generally favored requests by non-Black employees over those by Black employees. He also claims that he reported his concerns about race and national origin discrimination in relation to bathroom breaks to Bautista and the HR department, but no specific action was taken to address them.
Defendants acknowledge that the bathroom break system at Smithfield is imperfect but claim that it is not run discriminatorily. They note that Garang's complaints about bathroom breaks are not atypical, as employees of all races and nationalities frequently complain about bathroom breaks for many reasons unrelated to discriminatory treatment. They also point to deposition testimony from several witnesses that Garang never raised the issue of discrimination in his complaints.
Garang was formally disciplined four times while working for Smithfield. Two violations were for theft of company time, with the second resulting in his discharge on June 16, 2016. On the day of that violation, June 13, 2016, Garang's production line finished work at 10:30 p.m. and commenced its usual teardown routine. However, Garang continued to work until 12:46 p.m. Defendants claim Garang continued to work without authorization, which was against company policy. They further claim that the decision to terminate Garang's employment came after a thorough investigation of this incident.
Garang does not dispute that he worked beyond his tear-down time or that he was disciplined, but he does dispute the defendants' version of the facts leading to the disciplinary action. According to Garang, a non-Black employee approached him at the end of his shift to ask if he would help that employee unload his truck. He agreed to help the other employee if Bautista allowed it. The employee told Garang that Bautista had given his approval. Because Garang believed he was authorized to work he began helping his co-worker. However, Bautista later discovered he had stayed past his shift and ordered that he go home. After an investigation of the matter, Garang was discharged.
Garang claims that his discharge was an act of discrimination and/or retaliation. He claims that he was terminated discriminatorily because the other employee involved in the incident, who was not Black, was not punished. He also claims he was retaliated against because he had complained to his supervisors and the HR department about race and national origin discrimination on other occasions. The defendants respond that Garang was discharged solely due to his violation of company policy for theft of company time.
Abiet began his employment on June 10, 2014. He is employed as a final trim worker. He bid for, and was awarded, a different position but ultimately chose to remain a final trim worker.
Abiet has raised allegations similar to Garang's. Like Garang, Abiet claims that he was subjected to discrimination in receiving bathroom breaks. He claims that he was denied or delayed in taking bathroom breaks almost every day. After asking for a break, he claims that he was often told that he would have to wait until the next day. He claims that non-Black employees were not treated this way.
Abiet also alleges that he was subjected to harassment based on his race and national origin. He claims that he was called or referred to as a monkey, among other things, and that Hispanic co-workers would laugh at him while speaking in Spanish around him. Abiet also claims he complained to supervisors about the harassment and bathroom break issues, including one incident when a red hat mentioned his race in telling him that he could not ask for breaks so often. Defendants respond that the only evidence Abiet has regarding these allegations are his own statements.
Abiet has been disciplined three times during his time at Smithfield, including twice for failing to follow instructions. While he was never discharged or demoted, he was suspended without pay for one of his violations. On that occasion, he claims he was not permitted to take a bathroom break until shortly before his shift was about to end. Although he finally received permission to take a break, he claims that he did not want to leave and potentially get in trouble for leaving his shift early, but the supervisor told him to go ahead and take the break.
According to Abiet, the production line had stopped when he came back to the floor several minutes later. He decided to clock out because no one else was working. The next day, Bautista wrote him up for not coming back to work after his bathroom break, resulting in his suspension without pay.
Defendants contest Abiet's version of the facts. They allege Abiet did not return from a bathroom break and clocked out eleven minutes before his co-workers did. Thus, they claim that they had legitimate grounds to discipline him.
Mitchell began his employment with Smithfield on April 28, 2015, as a scaler. He bid for, and was awarded, a new position and received positive reviews for his work in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...an employee when considering the qualified element of the prima facie case") (applying Iowa law); Garang v. Smithfield Farmland Corp. , 439 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1085-86 (N.D. Iowa 2020) (addressing the "performing work satisfactorily" vs "otherwise qualified" debate) (applying Iowa law). Compa......
- Mirza v. Ignite USA, LLC
-
Dirkzwager v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
...‘identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics.'" Id. (quoting St. Francis Coll. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609). It does not, however, protect against discrimination based on one's place of birth o......
-
Russell v. Dejoy
... ... workplace environment as a whole.” Garang ... v. Smithfield Farmland Corp., 439 F.Supp.3d 1073, ... 1089 ... ...