Lorenzen v. Gkn Armstrong Wheels, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. C 03-3073-MWB.,C 03-3073-MWB.
• Citation: Lorenzen v. Gkn Armstrong Wheels, Inc., 345 F.Supp.2d 977 (N.D. Iowa 2004)
• Parties: Tammra LORENZEN, Plaintiff, v. GKN ARMSTRONG WHEELS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

345 F.Supp.2d 977

Tammra LORENZEN, Plaintiff, v.GKN ARMSTRONG WHEELS, INC., Defendant.

No. C 03-3073-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

November 22, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark D. Sherinian, Sherinian & Walker, PC, West Des Moines, IA, for Tammra Lorenzen.

Charles W. McManigal, Laird, Heiny, McManigal, Winga, Duffy & Stambaugh, PC, Mason City, IA, Darrell, J. Isaacson, Yunek Isaacson, PLC, Mason, City, IA, for GKN Armstrong Wheels, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................980
                     A. Factual Background ..............................................980
                     B. Procedural Background............................................982
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .....................................................983
                     A. A Preliminary Matter ............................................983
                     B. Standards For Summary Judgment ..................................984
                     C. Lorenzen's Equal Pay Act Claim ..................................985
                        1. Arguments of the parties .....................................985
                        2. Applicable Law ...............................................985
                

3. Analysis .....................................................986
                     D. Lorenzen's Disability Discrimination Claim ......................987
                        1. Arguments of the parties .....................................987
                        2. Analysis .....................................................989
                           a. Actual disability .........................................989
                           b. Perceived disability ......................................990
                     E. Lorenzen's Wrongful Discharge Claim .............................991
                        1. Arguments of the parties .....................................991
                        2. Analysis .....................................................992
                III. CONCLUSION .........................................................994
                

Was a recently-injured female employee constructively discharged and discriminated against in pay because of her sex, disability, or workers' compensation claim, or did she just quit in a huff when she did not get as big a raise as she expected?On its motion for summary judgment, the employer contends that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of the employee's claims.Although the employee now withdraws her claim of disparate treatment because of sex, she contends that she is entitled to present to a jury her remaining claims of violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and Iowa public policy.The court must decide whether this matter will proceed to trial on December 13, 2004, on any or all of the employee's remaining claims.

I.INTRODUCTION

A.Factual Background

The court will not attempt here an exhaustive dissertation of the undisputed and disputed facts in this case.Rather, the court will identify the core of undisputed facts and sufficient of the disputed facts to put in context the parties' arguments for and against summary judgment.

The parties agree that defendantGKN Armstrong Wheels, Inc., hired plaintiffTammra Lorenzen as a press operator on February 14, 2000, and that her initial rate of pay was $8.86 per hour.Although the parties dispute the precise duties of a press operator, they apparently agree that those duties include loading and unloading wheel components to and from the press.Lorenzen's supervisor was Tim Helmers, and the "lead man" in her department was Jeff Hecht.Helmers's supervisor was Abdul Butt.

Lorenzen's performance was evaluated about sixty days after she was hired and about every ninety days thereafter.At each evaluation, she received an "average" score and the usual "single bump" in pay, amounting to about a twenty to forty cents per hour increase.However, Lorenzen contends that, in the early summer of 2001, Tim Helmers promised her that he would work to get her a "double bump," or two-step pay increase, at her next evaluation, which was due in mid-July.Indeed, Lorenzen contends that she was "promised" such a "double bump" by both Helmers and Butt, which GKN disputes.The parties dispute the precise criteria for receiving a "double bump," but agree that such pay increases were uncommon and were reserved for employees who performed outstanding work.

Lorenzen's July 2001 evaluation was delayed, because Tim Helmers was on vacation.On July 20, 2001, before the evaluation could be rescheduled, Lorenzen was injured on the job when a part kicked back out of the press and cut her left arm.Lorenzen's arm was stitched at the hospital emergency room and the treating physician told Lorenzen that she could return to work, subject to a ten-pound lifting restriction.Lorenzen's injury was eventually recorded in GKN'sOSHA 200 log and GKN's Safety Director, Kevin Smith, completed an Employee's Report of Injury for GKN's workers' compensation administrator on July 25, 2001.There does not appear to be any dispute that GKN's workers' compensation carrier paid workers' compensation benefits for Lorenzen's injuries.

Lorenzen did not return to work until July 26, 2001, at which time she saw the company physician, Dr. Moews.Dr. Moews advised Lorenzen that the ten-pound lifting restriction would continue, but that she could resume her regular duties after ten days.During the following days, Lorenzen was paid her regular pay for an eight-hour day, even though she was sometimes required to work only one or two hours a day on light duty.Lorenzen contends that this work schedule was to avoid reporting her injury as a "lost time" injury, because supervisors and managers received bonuses for elimination of "lost time" injuries.GKN, on the other hand, contends that this reduced work schedule at full pay was designed to compensate employees for the lack of workers' compensation benefits for the first three days lost after an injury.Lorenzen's light duty at this time consisted of sweeping floors, cleaning, and sometimes answering the phone.Although Lorenzen contends that GKN had a clerical position reserved for employees on light duty, GKN denies that contention.In any event, Lorenzen was never assigned to such a clerical position.Lorenzen also contends that her injury could have been accommodated at her press operator's job, within her lifting restrictions, by using aides and hoists, but GKN contends that such an accommodation was not "prudent" with Lorenzen's lifting restrictions and her need to keep her wound clean.

At some point, Lorenzen was assigned to drive a forklift as part of her "light duty."GKN contends that this assignment lasted only a few days before Lorenzen quit; Lorenzen contends that it lasted almost three weeks.Lorenzen also complains that driving a forklift was dangerous and "scary," because she had received no training on the machine, she had difficulty operating the controls with her injured arm in a splint, and the vibration of the machine caused pain in her injured arm.GKN contends that operating a forklift was within Lorenzen's medical restrictions and that she has admitted as much.Although Lorenzen contends that she made "daily" complaints about her problems with driving the forklift, GKN contends that, on the only occasion that she complained, Helmers gave her two days off without pay.

On or about August 10, 2001, Lorenzen finally had her delayed July 2001 evaluation.Instead of getting the expected "double bump," Lorenzen received only another "average" evaluation and a "single bump" of $0.39 per hour.In the course of the evaluation interview, Lorenzen contends that Butt and Helmers told her that she should thank them for even getting paid at all after her injury and also told her to go home and think about whether she wanted her job or not.She contends, further, that Butt told her that Brian Aanonson, a male employee, had received a "double bump," but that was because he was a good worker and hadn't gotten hurt.Lorenzen contends that she is just as competent and did her job just as well as Aanonson.Butt and Helmers vehemently deny making any of the comments attributed to them by Lorenzen.However, Helmers does acknowledge that Butt told Lorenzen that, because she was unhappy, she should go home and consider what she wanted to do.Lorenzen contends that she did go home and thereafter determined that she could no longer work for a company that demanded thanks for letting her keep her job after she had been injured.

Lorenzen admits that she saw the company doctor again on August 13, 2001, at which time the doctor raised her lifting restriction to twenty pounds and advised her to wear a splint for two more weeks when she was working.She also admits that she worked on August 14, 2001, although she contends that that was the day of the unpleasant conference with Butt and Helmers.She does not dispute that she left work during her shift on August 14, 2001, but contends that it was after Butt had ordered her to go home and think about whether she wanted to keep her job.It is undisputed that Lorenzen did not tell anyone that she would not be coming back, that she did not return to work as scheduled or call in any excuse on August 15, 16, and 17, 2001, or that, pursuant to company policy, GKN considered Lorenzen to have quit voluntarily after three consecutive absences.It is also undisputed that Lorenzen did not attend a scheduled exit interview on September 4, 2001, with GKN's Human Resources Manager, Mike Perrine.

Similarly, it is undisputed that Lorenzen never made a complaint of disability or sexual discrimination to any designated company representative.However, Lorenzen contends that such a report or any further attempt to work out her dispute would have been futile, where she had made clear to Helmers and Butt that she...