McAninch v. Federal Exp. Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:03-CV-90498.,4:03-CV-90498. |
| Citation | 398 F.Supp.2d 1025 |
| Parties | Catherine McANINCH, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION and Robert Cummings, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Jeffrey D Ewaldt, Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., West Des Moines, IA, Michael Edwin Gabel, Federal Express Legal Department, Richard Samuel McConnell, Jr, Federal Express Corp, Memphis, TN, Greg A Naylor, Whitfield & Eddy PLC, West Des Moines, for Robert Cummings, Federal Express Corp, Defendants.
Elizabeth Ann Flansburg, Lawyer Dougherty Palmer & Flansburg PLC, West Des Moines, IA, for Catherine McAninch, Plaintiff.
Before the Court are the following motions: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 17); Defendants' Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits and Portions of Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts and Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 37); and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Clerk's No. 44). Plaintiff's Complaint (Clerk's No. 1), filed September 8, 2003, alleges eight causes of action: 1) Invasion of Privacy-False Light; 2) Slander Per Se; 3) Sex Discrimination and Harassment in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 216; 4) Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C § 2000(e); 5) Retaliation in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 216; 6) Retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e); 7) Age Discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"); and 8) Age Discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA"). Subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII and ADEA claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Iowa claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
In the present motion for summary judgment, filed June 14, 2005, Defendants argue numerous legal reasons why they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed a resistance to Defendants' Motion (Clerk's Nos. 25-27) and Defendants replied (Clerk's No. 36). In her resistance to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff seeks to voluntarily dismiss the defamation, invasion of privacy, age discrimination, and retaliation claims in Counts I, II, V, VI, VII, and VIII. Accordingly, the only remaining claims left for consideration on summary judgment are those contained in Counts III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint, that is, the Sexual Discrimination and Harassment claims under state and federal law.
Plaintiff has additionally filed a resistance to Defendants' Motion to Strike. Defendants have not formally resisted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; however, the Court will treat Defendants' request in their Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for naming the wrong party in interests as a resistance. The Court denies Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument as it does not appear that it would aid or assist the Court in the determination of the present motion. The matters are fully submitted.
Plaintiff commenced employment at Federal Express Corporation, d/b/a/ FedEx Express ("FedEx Express"), in the Des Moines sales department in 1989. Plaintiff received several advances throughout her tenure with FedEx Express, eventually assuming the position of senior account executive. Plaintiff's manager at FedEx Express was located in Milwaukee, and Plaintiff only saw him approximately once every three months. As a FedEx Express employee, Plaintiff was required to make four face-to-face sales calls per day. There was no requirement that Plaintiff entertain clients in the form of lunch meetings or other activities away from the customer's business.
In approximately June 2000, a new company, known as FedEx Services, was formed. Fed Ex Services hired sales personnel who had previously worked for two other companies: FedEx Express and RPS (now known as FedEx Ground). While the FedEx Express management philosophy was described by at least one former employee as "loose," the sales personnel at RPS were admittedly subject to a more focused management structure. RPS sales employees were held accountable for meeting strict objective performance criteria, including making eight face-to-face sales calls per day, and taking clients out for entertainment at least three times per week. RPS sales employees reported to a manager located locally in Des Moines. On June 1, 2000, Plaintiff became an employee of the newly formed FedEx Services, under the management of Defendant Robert Cummings, a former district sales manager for RPS. Cummings, in turn, reported to a female named Barbara Maloney. Cummings' sales team, as of June 2000, consisted of three former employees of FedEx Express, specifically Plaintiff, Greg Roberts, and Doug Roe, as well as several former RPS employees, including Jan Risen, Ken Frauenholz, Chris Burger, and Mike Vaske. All of the events forming the basis of Plaintiff's Complaint occurred while she was employed at FedEx Services.
As an employee of FedEx Services, Plaintiff was subject to objective performance evaluations, such as those previously employed by RPS. Sales employees of FedEx Services were required to conduct eight face-to-face customer sales calls per day and were required to conduct at least three "client entertainment" activities per week. Plaintiff's first complaint about Cummings arose during the context of a pre-merger meeting in approximately March 2000. During that meeting, an employee of either RPS or FedEx Express raised certain questions about how things had been done in the past. Cummings purportedly replied, "You're in Bob's world now." Pl.'s App. at 374 (Dep. of Douglas Roe). After meeting Plaintiff for the first time, Cummings told Todd Simpson, an operations manager with Federal Express Corp., that Plaintiff was a "short termer." Pl.'s App. at 312 (Aff. of Todd Simpson). Simpson interpreted this statement to mean that Cummings was out to get Plaintiff and warned Plaintiff of his belief. Id. Simpson also stated that it was clear to him that Cummings did not like the Plaintiff and wanted to either fire her or force her to quit. Id.
Numerous employees at FedEx Services appear to have harbored some negative feelings about Cummings during Plaintiff's employment. Tracy Willis, a ground operations manager,1 noted that Cummings came into her office one day and questioned why she was seeing customers. Pl.'s App. at 323A. Willis felt that Cummings was rude and was "attacking [her] integrity."2 Id. at 324. Likewise, upon first meeting Cummings, Julie Roe, a corporate account executive who sometimes went on sales calls with the Plaintiff, was told by Cummings that, "[I]f you were one of my employees, you would be-[the phrase was not completed in the testimony, but Roe believed Cummings was going to say `in trouble'] because [she] didn't have a pen or pencil." Pl.'s App. at 336. Roe believed that Cummings was indicating that she would have been in big trouble were she Cummings' employee and was intimidated by the remark. Id. at 336, 338. Roe also recalled Cummings being very "short" with Plaintiff and believed that Cummings had a "good old boys network," and noted that "most all" of the women at the front office complained about Cummings at some point, but no male employees ever did. Id. at 339-40, 361. Judy Ostler, a customer service representative, noted that Plaintiff frequently complained about Cummings' treatment of females, and personally perceived Cummings as intimidating and rude. Id. at 391-95.
Certain male employees also noticed Cummings' behavior toward women, and toward Plaintiff in particular. Al Bell, a senior manager of operations, states that four female employees, Plaintiff, Tracy Willis, Denise Lundquist, and Judy Ostler, complained about the way Cummings treated them, having told him Cummings was "arrogant, rude and condescending toward them and that he had acted unprofessionally." Pl.'s App. at 314 (Aff. of Al Bell). Both Ostler and Willis were upset that Cummings had "jumped" them when he found they were making joint sales calls with Plaintiff, a practice that had been done for years and was approved by the corporate office. Id. Moreover, Bell noted that he "personally witnessed Mr. Cummings treat [Plaintiff] in a condescending manner and witnessed that he did not treat her with the same respect as he did other sales employees." Id. Rick Hardinger, a client of Plaintiff's, had lunch on numerous occasions with Plaintiff and Cummings. Pl.'s App. at 315 (Aff. of Rick Hardinger). He found Cummings was "condescending and sarcastic" towards Plaintiff and noted that when Plaintiff became defensive, Cummings would say things like "look what I have to put up with." Id.
On August 4, 2000, approximately three months after Cummings and Plaintiff began working together, Plaintiff sent Cummings an e-mail which stated in part:
[W]e received goals last week, I am deeply disappointed by my goal attainment as I can see by your comments you are also. I am working hard, doing the right thing, trying to work thru a new manager, new style of management, new territory, new products, new work group, new automation system, new pricing system, new employee base (contractors, ground operators)... staying positive and not feeling overwhelmed has been difficult for us all ... I have 16 years with this company and been thru lots of changes and I will survive this one... it may be my imagine but on days like today (I am on vacation) and I get your comments I feel a great deal of hostility toward me ... maybe it is your way of motivating but it feels awful from the chair I am sitting in ..... once again I will commit to you that I am doing everything I can to put...
To continue reading
Request your trial