Garvin v. Siouxland Mental Health Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. C10-4107-MWB,C10-4107-MWB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: SERENA GARVIN & KATHERINE MURPHY, Plaintiffs, v. SIOUXLAND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SIOUXLAND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER; KIM FISCHER-CULVER and JIM RIXNER, Defendants.

SERENA GARVIN & KATHERINE MURPHY, Plaintiffs,

v. SIOUXLAND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SIOUXLANDMENTAL HEALTH CENTER; KIM FISCHER-CULVER and JIM RIXNER, Defendants.

No. C10-4107-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

Date: May 18, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..........................2

A. Factual Background...................................2

1. Facts related to Katherine Murphy's claims.............3

2. Facts related to Serena Garvin's claims............... 21

B. Procedural Background............................... 32

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS...................................... 34

A. Summary Judgment Standards........................... 34

B. Plaintiffs' Sexually Hostile Work Environment Claims........... 40

1. Elements of claim............................. 40

2. Murphy's sexually hostile work environment claim ....... 42

a. Limitations period .......................... 42

b. Continuing violations ........................ 45

c. Merits of Murphy's claim...................... 49

3. Garvin's sexually hostile work environment claim ....... 53

a. Actionable harassment ....................... 53b. The Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense........... 55

i. Tangible employment action ............. 55

ii. Does SMHC meet the defense's requirements? .58

C. Plaintiffs' Retaliation Claims ............................ 59

1. A prima facie case ............................ 60

a. Protected activity......................... 60

b. Causal connection ........................ 61

III. CONCLUSION ........................................ 63

Plaintiffs, a former female mental health therapist and a female community support specialist of a mental health services provider, allege that they were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation 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, IOWA CODE CH. 216. The defendants—a mental health services provider, its executive director, and a supervising employee —have moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' claims. Thus, I must determine which, if any, of the plaintiffs' claims should go to a jury.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

I set forth those facts, both undisputed and disputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning defendants' motions for summary judgment. Unlessotherwise indicated, the facts recited here are undisputed, at least for purposes of summary judgment. Additional factual allegations and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material will be discussed, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

1. Facts related to Katherine Murphy's claims

In 2002, plaintiff Katherine Murphy was hired by defendant Jim Rixner as a contract therapist for defendant Siouxland Mental Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Siouxland Mental Health Center ("SMHC"). Rixner is SMHC's executive director. In February 2005, Murphy was hired by Jenny Crew as a full time, regular employee of SMHC working as a mental health therapist. At that time, Jennifer Crew became Murphy's immediate supervisor. Crew's immediate supervisor was Rixner.

In the summer of 2005, Murphy was told to begin reporting to defendant Kim Fischer-Culver. Discussions about the Child waiver Program started that summer. The Child waiver Program was a program for severely emotionally disturbed children who would come for treatment to SMHC. Crew and Fischer-Culver asked Murphy to be the clinician for the Child waiver Program and Fischer-Culver would do the administrative work for it. After Murphy began her duties with the Child waiver Program, Crew continued to be Murphy's immediate supervisor. However, Fischer-Culver occupied a managerial role over Murphy. Murphy claims that Fischer-Culver was her supervisor with respect to the Child waiver Program "because she ran the waivers, all of them. They were administered through her, all of the information was disseminated through her. The everything. She hired the case manager for that position." Murphy Dep. at 70; Defendants' Murphy App. at 12. However, Fischer-Culver did not require Murphy to make any daily, weekly, or monthly reports to her regarding the Child waiver Program. Murphy did not have to provide Fischer-Culver with time records showing her time spenton the Child waiver Program. Murphy had numerous telephone calls with Fischer-Culver regarding the Child waiver Program. Murphy concedes that the subjects of these calls were appropriate. From the summer of 2005 to September 2005, Murphy still officially reported to Crew.

Fischer-Culver had a lesbian relationship with her college roommate between 1990 through 1992. She ended the relationship because "it wasn't something that I wanted in my life" and "I wanted to move on with my life and I wanted to get married and have children." Fischer-Culver Dep. at 250; Defendants' Murphy App. at 50. Fischer-Culver married Gary Culver in 1997. She and her husband have three children.

In September 2005, Murphy claims that Fischer-Culver sexually harassed her. In September 2005, during a trip to Des Moines, Fischer-Culver told Murphy that she knew that Murphy was in recovery and sitting on the drug court. Fischer-Culver inferred that Murphy was in recovery because Murphy sat on a drug court and, generally, persons in recovery sit on the drug court. Fischer-Culver explained that she had just begun recovery for alcohol herself and asked if she could use Murphy as a resource support person, particularly on the weekends. Murphy said "absolutely" and they discussed Fischer-Culver's alcohol issues.

Murphy believes that it is common for persons in recovery to seek out others in recovery for support. She also believes that disseminating information obtained from persons in recovery is "viewed negatively" and that there is an expectation that details shared with others in recovery are kept private.

After the trip to Des Moines, Fischer-Culver telephoned Murphy once on a weekend. Murphy related that during this call:

A: She told me that it was very difficult that particular day because there was a Coyote USD football game,tailgating was a big part of their social life, and it was just a pretty difficult day for her.

Q. And what, if anything, did you say?

A. I just asked that--suggested that she continue to stay connected to people that weren't drinking or she may need to avoid that. One of the things in AA is change your playgrounds and your playmates, so she may need to not go to the tailgating.

Q. Anything else about that conversation, either what she said or what you said that you can recall?

A. Yes. Then she disclosed to me that she was aware that a good deal of her drinking was due to the fact that she was a lesbian and that she was never able to disclose that.

Q. Did you respond in any way?

A. Yes.

Q. In what way?

A. I told her she would not be the first person and she wouldn't be the last person to drink at that kind of confusion, and I suggested she continue in her AA meetings and her therapy.

Q. Up to that point in the conversation that we've covered so far, did you consider anything about that phone call inappropriate?

A. No.Q. Did you at that time while you are talking to Kim on the phone that day view her as your supervisor at work?

A. That day I viewed her as an alcoholic in need.

Q. You didn't say up to this point in the conversation, you know, anything like, you know, Kim, because we have work interaction I don't know if I'm the right person or I feel uncomfortable listening to your details?

A. No.

Q. What else was said then in the conversation?

A. don't remember any specifics other than those.

Q. You are not claiming in this case that the phone call was unwelcome?

A. No.

Murphy Dep. at 80-82; Defendants' Murphy App. at 14-15.

A few days later, Fischer-Culver called Murphy's office asking if Fischer-Culver could stop by. Murphy said "sure." Murphy relates that the following then occurred:

A. She came to my office.

Q. Tell me what transpired.

A. She said that she had just left therapy and that she had come to understand that I reminded her a great deal of her great true love, who was her roommate, and that she wanted to know if I would be interested in having a relationship with her.

Q. She asked you that in your office at Siouxland Mental Health Center?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. No one else was present, I assume?

A. No one else.

Q. And what was your response?

A. My response was I'm straight, I have been married for 21 years, and that's how it's going to continue.

Q. Did you make any other comment?

A. No.

Q. Kim left then? A. No.

Q. What happened?

A. She spent about another hour talking about this particular person that she was in love with and why she didn't stay in that relationship, and -

Q. She stayed for an hour?

A. Yeah, an hour or better.

Q. And at any point when she started talking about that, did you tell her that she needed to leave?

A. No.Q. Did you ever tell her that the things she was talking about to you in a work environment were unwelcome to you?

A. No.

Q. Why didn't you do any of those things?

A. I became very aware that it was just the two of us in the building, and I just wanted to leave the building.

Q. Did she physically restrain you in any way from leaving the building?

A. No.

Q. Couldn't you have gotten up at any time during that hour and said I've got to go and left?

A. I did.

Q. That's how it ended finally?

A. Yes.

Murphy Dep. at 82-85; Defendants' Murphy App. at 15. Fischer-Culver denies that she asked Murphy to have a sexual relationship.

That same evening, Murphy received repeated telephone calls from Fischer-Culver. Murphy talked to Fischer-Culver once and describes that conversation as follows:

A. Okay. Kim referenced it yesterday. I was -- after I met with her, I met my husband up at Green Gables for dinner, and I was ready to tell him what happened because I wasn't absolutely certain how to process it. So

...