Grover v. Smarte Carte, Inc., Civil No. 09–3282 (SRN/FLN).

• Decision Date: 22 December 2011
• Docket Number: Civil No. 09–3282 (SRN/FLN).
• Citation: 836 F.Supp.2d 860
• Parties: Jean GROVER, Plaintiff, v. SMARTE CARTE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

836 F.Supp.2d 860

Jean GROVER, Plaintiff,

v.SMARTE CARTE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants.

Civil No. 09–3282 (SRN/FLN).

United States District Court,

D. Minnesota.

Dec. 22, 2011.

Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Kurt J. Erickson and Nora R. Kaitfors, Jackson Lewis LLP, Thomas E. Marshall, Engelmeier & Umanah, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 15]. For the reasons stated below, this Court denies Defendant's Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jean Grover alleges that she was discriminated against because of her gender while she was an employee of Defendant Smarte Carte, Inc. Specifically, Grover alleges that she was paid less than similarly situated male employees and that she was overlooked for career- and compensation-enhancing opportunities that were ultimately awarded to male employees. Grover also alleges that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about her unequal treatment.

Smarte Carte is a Minnesota-based international retailer of rentable luggage carts, lockers, and strollers. Smarte Carte's products are available in airports, theme parks, ski resorts, and retail establishments. Smarte Carte's principal revenue stream comes from its airport luggage-cart business. Smarte Carte has had a tumultuous corporate history; Smarte Carte has changed hands multiple times in the last twenty-five years and filed for bankruptcy in February 2005. (Rudis Decl. ¶ 3.)

Grover worked for Smarte Carte from 1994 to 2007. Grover started out as a sales representative and, through a series of promotions over the years, eventually rose to the level of vice president. Grover earned salary increases along with her various promotions. From 1999 until her termination in 2007, Grover was Vice President of Business Development and Operations of Smarte Carte's domestic locker and retail business. (Erickson Decl. Ex. 2.) Grover also testified that, in addition to the domestic market, she was responsible for business development in Canada, parts of Europe, and other international locations. (Grover Dep. at 105, 181–82; Grover Aff. ¶¶ 15, 20.) Grover's focus was the development and growth of the company's stroller and locker product lines in the retail (or non-airport) market. (Grover Dep. at 66–67, 98.)

Before September 1999, Grover was supervised by then-CEO Brad Stanius. Most, if not all, of Grover's promotions occurred during Stanius's tenure.¹ In 2000, Edward Rudis succeeded Stanius as CEO.

The record shows that Grover was quite successful during her tenure with Smarte Carte. Under her leadership, sales attributable to the locker and retail division accounted for between 15.2% and 18.6% of Smarte Carte's total sales.² (Rudis Dep., Ex. 1 at 8.) Grover was routinely praised for her negotiation skills and her ability to land large contracts for the company. Grover's reviews appear to have been largely positive, although Rudis noted on several occasions that Grover had difficulty relating to her coworkers. ( See Grover Dep. at 153–56.) Specifically, in Grover's review for 2003 (which she received in early 2004), Rudis stated that he was “concerned about [Grover's] ability to resolve issues with her peers.” ( Id. at 156.)

On May 28, 2004, Grover responded to the 2003 review in a memorandum to Rudis. (Rudis Dep., Ex. 13.) Grover complained that the negative comments in her review stemmed from a “biased power base” among management from which she was excluded. Grover asserted that she was increasingly unable to work with her peers and superiors because their bias against her undercut her ability to communicate effectively. ( Id. at 1.) Grover specifically noted that “senior management perceive [her] comments, directives and recommendations differently than those voiced by [her] peers.” ( Id.) Grover also complained that she was underpaid vis-a-vis her male peers: “I have expressed my concern about compensation vs. demonstrated performance and responsibility compared to my peers a few times to you over the last year. These concerns remain un-addressed.” ( Id.) Grover then compared her compensation and responsibilities to those of one of her alleged comparators, Arthur Spring, and requested a response. ( Id. at 1–2.) At the time, Arthur Spring was Vice President of Carts and Lockers—International. (Erickson Decl., Ex. 2 at 4.) It is not clear from the record whether Rudis ever responded formally to Grover's memorandum.

On June 9, 2004, Grover sent Rudis a follow-up memorandum again outlining her perceived unequal treatment. (Rudis Dep., Ex. 13 at 3–4.) She attached various graphs showing her performance from 1996 to 2003 and her perceived unfavorable compensation as compared with that of Arthur Spring. ( Id. at 5–8.) Again, the record is unclear as to whether or how Rudis responded to Grover's memorandum.

In March 2005, Grover met with Rudis to discuss a new bonus plan that she felt treated her unfairly by providing for similar bonuses to the airport line of business for reaching a lower sales threshold. (Grover Aff., Ex 2 at 5.) Rudis told her that he would discuss the matter with the company's Chief Financial Officer. ( Id.)

On April 15, 2005, Grover again met with Rudis to discuss her concern that she was being compensated unfairly. ( Id. at 214–16.) On April 23, 2005, Rudis responded to Grover's complaints of unequal pay in writing. (Rudis Dep., Ex. 14.) Rudis first dismissed Grover's assertion that she was unfairly paid less than her male peers: “I continue to believe that your current compensation including base salary and bonus plan is in line with your level of responsibility within the organization.” ( Id.) Rudis stated, however, that Grover would be offered additional incentives in the form of deferred salary and stock options, which were “intended to recognize [Grover's] contribution to the growth of new business for Smarte Carte.” ³ ( Id.) Rudis then rejected Grover's request for a promotion to senior vice president without explanation: “I do want to keep your title as an officer in the company as that of Vice President.” ( Id.) Rudis ended the letter by stating that he “did not wish to discuss the matter any further” and that if Grover was still unsatisfied, she should “look outside at other opportunities that might betterserve [her] financial and career needs.” ( Id.)

On January 12, 2006, Grover's review for 2005 indicated that her job was in jeopardy due to her “struggle with managing interpersonal relationships with peers.” (Rudis Dep., Ex. 15.)

Throughout 2006 and 2007, Grover continued to formally complain to Rudis about her unequal pay and her belief that she was treated less respectfully than her male peers and that her decisions were actively undermined by senior management. ( See Grover Aff. ¶¶ 22–26.) On May 8, 2007, Grover again met with Rudis to discuss these issues and again provided documentation supporting her belief that she was paid less than her male peers and that she was treated with less respect and given less autonomy than her male peers. (Grover Aff. ¶¶ 25–26; id., Ex. 1; Grover Dep. at 251–52.)

On May 31, 2007, Smarte Carte terminated Grover without cause. (Grover Dep., Ex. 18.) Rudis told Grover that she was being discharged due to a reduction in force, but it is not clear from the record whether other employees were fired along with Grover. It does appear, however, that Grover's position was not filled and that her responsibilities were rolled into an existing position. ( See Sarnoski Decl., Ex. H at 2.)

On February 22, 2008, Grover filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), charging Smarte Carte with violating the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Erickson Decl., Ex. 1.) Grover's EEOC complaint states that the discrimination took place between February 14, 2004 and May 30, 2007.( Id.) After receiving evidence from both parties, the EEOC issued Grover a right-to-sue letter.

On November 19, 2009, Grover filed the present case, again claiming violations under the EPA and Title VII and for retaliation. [Doc. No. 1.] Grover also brought claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 363A.01, 363A.15. In October 2010, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Grover's state-law claims.

Smarte Carte now moves for summary judgment, arguing that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Smarte Carte discriminated or retaliated against Grover.

II. DISCUSSIONA. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the material facts in the case are undisputed. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Whisenhunt v. SW Bell Tel., 573 F.3d 565, 568 (8th Cir.2009). The Court must view the evidence, and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Weitz Co., LLC v. Lloyd's of London, 574 F.3d 885, 892 (8th Cir.2009); Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d 714, 716 (8th Cir.2007). The nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials, but must show through the presentation of admissible evidence that specific facts exist creating a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Davenport v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trustees, 553 F.3d 1110, 1113 (8th Cir.2009) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505).

B. Equal Pay Act ...