McKinney v. New Cooperative, Inc., No. C 02-3084-MWB (N.D. Iowa 12/11/2003)

• Decision Date: 11 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. C 02-3084-MWB.,C 02-3084-MWB.
• Citation: McKinney v. New Cooperative, Inc., No. C 02-3084-MWB (N.D. Iowa 12/11/2003) (N.D. Iowa 2003)
• Parties: AUDRA A. McKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEW COOPERATIVE, INC., BRENT BUNTE, and RAY BEENKEN, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Page 1

AUDRA A. McKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEW COOPERATIVE, INC., BRENT BUNTE, and RAY BEENKEN, Defendants.

No. C 02-3084-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa.

December 11, 2003.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARK BENNETT, Chief Judge, District.

This action by plaintiff Audra A. McKinney involves claims pursuant to state and federal law of a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, which allegedly resulted in McKinney's constructive discharge from her employment, against defendants NEW Cooperative, Inc. (NEW Coop), Brent Bunte, and Ray Beenken.¹ This matter comes before the court pursuant to the defendants' October 9, 2003, motion for summary judgment (docket no. 10) on all of McKinney's claims. McKinney resisted the motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2003 (docket no. 12). The defendants did not file a reply brief, nor did they respond to McKinney's Statement of Additional Facts. No party has requested oral arguments. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is fully submitted on the written arguments and record.

As this court has explained on a number of occasions, when applying the standards of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure providing for summary judgment, the trial judge's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir. 1996); Johnson v. Enron Corp., 906 F.2d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1990). In reviewing the record, the court must view all of the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Quick, 90 F.3d at 1377 (same). Procedurally, the moving party bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show lack of a genuine issue." Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)); see also Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 1998); Reed v. Woodruff County, Ark., 7 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1993). When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the party opposing summary judgment is required under Rule 56(e) to go beyond the pleadings, and by affidavits, or by the "depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file," designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Rabushka ex. rel. United States v. Crane Co., 122 F.3d 559, 562 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1040 (1998); McLaughlin v. Esselte Pendaflex Corp., 50 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 1995); Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1325 (8th Cir. 1995). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if it has a real basis in the record. Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 394 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586-87). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment," i.e., are "material." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Beyerbach, 49 F.3d at 1326; Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 394. If a party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim with respect to which that party has the burden of proof, then the opposing party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323; In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d 1484, 1492 (8th Cir. 1997). Finally, this court has repeatedly taken note of the rule in this circuit that, because summary judgment often turns on inferences from the record, summary judgment should seldom or rarely be granted in employment discrimination cases. See, e.g., Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Soc'y, 931 F.2d 1239, 1244 (8th Cir. 1991)). The court will apply these standards to the defendants' motion for summary judgment on McKinney's claims.

However, the court must first provide sufficient factual background to the parties' dispute to put in context their arguments for and against summary judgment. The parties agree that NEW Coop is a farmer-owned feed and seed agricultural cooperative, and that, at all times pertinent to McKinney's claims, defendant Brent Bunte was the General Manager of NEW Coop, and defendant Ray Beenken was the Director of Administration. They also agree that McKinney began working for NEW Coop in September 1997, first in a "controller" position, responsible for payroll and other bookkeeping activities, then, beginning in 1999, in the newly-created position of human resources director, despite the fact that she had little prior human resources experience. In August of 1999, McKinney was allowed to reduce her hours to part-time, six hours per day, with three-quarters benefits.

Although the parties agree that McKinney had been "frustrated" with various aspects of her job and certain business and accounting practices of NEW Coop, that "frustration" is not the central issue in this lawsuit. Indeed, the issue is not even whether McKinney was subjected to incidents of sexually inappropriate behavior during her employment with NEW Coop, but how many such incidents there were, whether those incidents were sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to constitute actionable harassment, whether NEW Coop knew or should have known of the harassment and responded adequately to it, and whether NEW Coop retaliated against McKinney for reporting conduct toward herself and others that she believed violated Tide VII and the ICRA.

The defendants acknowledge that they were aware of or that McKinney complained about the following incidents: (1) comments by a member of the board of a wholly-owned subsidiary of NEW Coop at a board meeting in the summer of 1998 to the effect that McKinney would not have a cold if she didn't sleep naked; (2) comments by the former General Manager of NEW Coop casting doubt on McKinney's ability to put together a financial statement, which were relayed to McKinney by Bunte, with conduct by Bunte indicating that he shared such concerns; (3) an incident on July 26, 1999, in which a truck driver not employed by NEW Coop rubbed McKinney's belly when she was eight months pregnant; (4) a comment in July 1999 by Beenken that another female employee must have had her brains screwed out on her honeymoon, because she was making mistakes; (5) a comment by a male management employee on January 12, 2001, to the effect that McKinney must be having "PMS"; (6) comments and conduct of male employees and management personnel during a sexual harassment training seminar suggesting that they were not taking the training seriously, and comments of one employee afterwards that "he'd better watch what he says around here from now on"; and (7) a series of comments to McKinney by a truck driver, Dan Blair, during a driver safety meeting on January 24, 2001, in front of about thirty-five people, including comments like, "Audra, you just had a baby, wow, you're looking good," and "Hey, you can ride in my truck any time," to which male managerial employees did not respond at the time.

Although the defendants acknowledge that McKinney complained about these incidents, the parties dispute whether NEW Coop managerial personnel responded to these incidents and whether McKinney expressed her satisfaction with their responses. McKinney also asserts that after the incident on January 24, 2001, supervisory personnel " gossip [ed]" and "spread[] rumors" about Dan Blair's conduct at the safety meeting, instead of investigating it and making clear that such conduct was inappropriate, and that she received a telephone call from Bob Koester, a Region Manager, after the meeting joking about Blair's comments, which McKinney contends she also found very upsetting. McKinney also contends that Bunte performed only a superficial investigation of the incident involving Blair, that Blair was not compelled to follow through on Bunte's direction that he write McKinney a letter of apology, and that Blair suffered no other sanction than being barred from 1.25 hours of regular time and any overtime for one week. Although the parties agree that Bunte asked Blair if she felt any other response to Blair's conduct was required, and that McKinney responded that she would think about it, McKinney contends that she concluded at or after the meeting with Bunte about his response to Blair's harassment that she could not continue working at NEW Coop.

McKinney also details additional incidents of harassment and retaliation in her Statement of Additional Facts to which the defendants have not responded. Specifically, McKinney cites the following additional incidents of harassment: (1) complaints by Ray Beenken, after McKinney returned from pregnancy leave, about the unfairness of allowing women pregnancy leave; (2) comments by Bob Koester to McKinney, such as, "How's the best looking girl in the Fort Dodge office?" and, while on the telephone to her, statements that "[he] could tell it was [McKinney] by the sweet smell"; and (3) managerial employees making light of the incident involving Blair and failing to respond adequately to that incident. McKinney also contends that, in late 2000, in response to a questionnaire in a human resources audit by McGladrey & Pullen, Beenken acknowledged that NEW Coop fosters and tolerates harassment and discrimination toward women.

McKinney details incidents of what she alleges was "protected conduct" upon which her retaliation claim is based, again without a response from the defendants, as including the following: (1) complaints to Beenken and Bunte that two supervisors had...