Lopez v. Whirlpool Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-CV-22-LRR,18-CV-22-LRR |
| Parties | HEATHER LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 2
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................... 2
III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ..................................................... 2
IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .................................................... 3
V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................. 4
VI. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 8
VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 21
I. INTRODUCTION
The matter before the court is Defendant Whirlpool Corporation's ("Whirlpool") "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion") (docket no. 32).
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff Heather Lopez filed a "Petition at Law and Jury Demand" ("Petition") (docket no. 5) in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. In the Petition, Lopez alleges discrimination (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA"), Iowa Code section 216.6. See generally Petition ¶¶ 20-26, 30-35. On February 8, 2018, Whirlpool filed a Notice of Removal (docket no. 1), bringing the case before the court. On March 8, 2018, Whirlpool filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses (docket no. 13).
On March 25, 2019, Whirlpool filed the Motion. On April 22, 2019, Lopez filed a Resistance ("Lopez's Resistance") (docket no. 38). On April 29, 2019, Whirlpool filed a Reply (docket no. 39). Neither party has requested oral argument, and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.
III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The court has original jurisdiction over Lopez's claim arising under Title VII. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (). The court has supplemental jurisdiction over Lopez's claim arising under the ICRA because it is so related to the claim within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ().
IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Summary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show'" an absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Hilde v. City of Eveleth, 777 F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gazal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 647 F.3d 833, 837-38 (8th Cir. 2011)). "The movant 'bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,' and must identify 'those portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the movant has done so, "the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324).
On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009)). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial," and summary judgment is appropriate. Ricci, 557 U.S. at 586 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). "The nonmovant 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts' . . . ." Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586). Instead, "[t]o survive a motionfor summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate [its] allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [its] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy." Williams v. Mannis, 889 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2018) () (quoting Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011)). Mere "self-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010). "Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment." Reasonover v. St. Louis Cty., 447 F.3d 569, 578 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2003)).
V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, and affording them all reasonable inferences, the uncontested material facts are as follows.
Lopez is a resident of Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa. See Petition ¶ 1. Whirlpool is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Benton Harbor, Michigan. See "Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Defendant Whirlpool Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Whirlpool SUF") (docket no. 32-2) ¶ 2.
In March 2015, Lopez was hired as a Plant Utility Assembler at Whirlpool's facility in Amana, Iowa. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6. Lopez was a member of Local Lodge No. 1526 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Id. ¶ 37. After three months of working at Whirlpool, Lopez bid into the Built-In Refrigeration ("BIR") line. Id. ¶ 9. Lopez's job duties varied from day to day because a Plant Utility Assembler could be asked to work at any position on the line that needed help on any given day. Id. ¶ 15; see also id. ¶ 24 (). Depending on the timeperiod, Lopez's supervisor, Sheri Gralund, Brian Penning, a Training Team Leader, an unidentified acting Team Leader and "maybe" others determined the labor distribution on the BIR line. Id. ¶¶ 25, 56.
On March 5, 2015, Lopez signed Whirlpool's Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy and Policy on Workplace Violence. Id. ¶ 27. At her new hire orientation, Lopez was trained on these policies. Id. ¶ 29. Under the policies, an employee who encounters harassment, discrimination and/or violence is required to promptly report such problems to a supervisor, manager or the Human Resources ("HR") department. Id. ¶ 33.
While Lopez worked on the BIR line, Penning was a Training Team Leader, whose duties included assisting Team Leads with various issues on the BIR line. Id. ¶ 56. Toward the end of Lopez's tenure at Whirlpool, Penning handled some of Gralund's supervisory duties, including distributing labor, dealing with issues on the BIR line and directing Team Leads. Id. ¶ 59. However, Penning had no authority to hire, fire, conduct performance evaluations, promote, demote, discipline, coach employees, recommend decisions, approve vacation time or conduct any other supervisory duties. Id. ¶ 62.
According to Lopez, the only individual who allegedly harassed her was Penning. Id. ¶ 71. Gralund did not witness Penning harass Lopez in any way. Id. ¶ 72. According to Lopez, in 2015, about one month after starting on the BIR line, Penning put his hand on her shoulder, violating her space. Id. ¶ 74. Lopez did not complain to her supervisor, Gralund or HR about this incident. Id. ¶ 79.
Another incident involving Penning occurred when Lopez got a metal sliver in her finger while working on the BIR line. Id. ¶ 88. According to Lopez, Penning did not send her to the nurse. Instead, Penning indicated that he could:
To continue reading
Request your trial