Michaelson v. Waitt Broadcasting, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C00-4171-MWB.,C00-4171-MWB. |
| Citation | 187 F.Supp.2d 1059 |
| Parties | Wesley A. MICHAELSON, Plaintiff, v. WAITT BROADCASTING, INC. d/b/a KMEG TV, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Paul Lundberg, Hellige, Lundberg, Meis, Erickson & Frey, Sioux City, IA, for plaintiff.
Theodore R. Boecker, Sherrets & Boecker, L.L.C., Omaha, NE, for defendant.
On December 4, 2000, plaintiff Wesley A. Michaelson filed this sex discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Waitt Broadcasting, Inc. ("Waitt Broadcasting"). Michaelson was employed as the general sales manager at Waitt Broadcasting's KMEG television station in Sioux City, Iowa. Michaelson alleges in his complaint that he was discharged from his employment because of his sex in order to protect the employment of a female employee, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), IOWA CODE Ch. 216.
On August 16, 2001, Waitt Broadcasting filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, Waitt Broadcasting asserts that Michaelson's voluntary resignation of his position precludes his recovery under Title VII and the ICRA. Waitt Broadcasting also contends that Michaelson's claims are barred under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. Waitt Broadcasting further asserts that Michaelson cannot establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. Finally, Waitt Broadcasting contends that the record is devoid of facts which would support Michaelson's claim for punitive damages.
Michaelson filed a timely resistance to Waitt Broadcasting's motion on October 15, 2001, in which he disputes all of Waitt Broadcasting's arguments for summary judgment. Before turning to discuss the standards for Waitt Broadcasting's Motion for Summary Judgment, the court will first examine the factual background of this case.
The court heard telephonic oral arguments on defendant Waitt Broadcasting's motion for summary judgment on February 1, 2002. At the oral arguments, plaintiff Michaelson was represented by counsel Paul Lundberg of Hellige, Lundberg, Meis, Erickson & Frey, Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant Waitt Broadcasting was represented by counsel Theodore R. Boecker of Sherrets & Boecker, L.L.C., Omaha, Nebraska.
The following facts are either undisputed or viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff Michaelson as the nonmoving party. On August 16, 1999, plaintiff Wesley A. Michaelson was hired as the general sales manager by KMEG television station. Robert Dean, KMEG's general manager, interviewed and hired Michaelson. Michaelson's job as KMEG's general sales manager required him to oversee and direct KMEG's sales representatives in selling advertising. He was also expected to increase sales by generating sales from new customers. Michaelson's employment agreement with KMEG was at will and provided no specific term of employment.
Dean told Michaelson when he was recruiting him that Dean had shored up the sales staff by getting long term commitments from two local sales representatives. When Michaelson started at KMEG his sales staff consisted of Don Leiting, Pat Foley, Chip Benning, and Mary Beyerink. Shortly after Michaelson arrived, Foley and Benning left KMEG to go work for a rival Sioux City television station, KCAU. Beyerink later left KMEG after Michaelson told her that she would only be paid on a commission basis.
In October of 1999, Michaelson hired Patricia Miller as a salesperson. In late February of 2000, Michaelson expressed his concerns about Miller's work performance. Miller missed work and was other times tardy due to her son's behavioral problems. Miller's accounts were billing substantially less in 2000 than the same accounts did in 1999, and she was not meeting sales goals. She also frequently missed mandatory sales meetings. Acrimony developed between Michaelson and Miller over Miller's work performance.
Dean defended Miller to Michaelson and suggested that Miller and Michaelson were simply "not getting along." Michaelson Aff. at ¶ 6. Michaelson told Dean that there was nothing personal about it and that he viewed Miller as having significant performance problems. Michaelson informed Dean that he would continue his efforts to turn Miller's performance around but, if she did not improve, he would fire her once he had adequate sales staffing.
In February of 2000, Miller complained to Dean that the sales staff needed training and additional support staff. She told Dean that the sales staff was suffering from low morale. In May of 2000, Miller again went to Dean and complained about the sales staff not getting the proper training on selling television advertising. She also complained about Michaelson, accusing him of badgering, lying, cheating, and yelling at her. She also accused Michaelson of hammering on her to force her to quit her job at KMEG.
One of Dean's superiors, Dale Oswald, criticized the sales levels at KMEG. Dean told Oswald and Diana Maudlin, Human Resources Director for Waitt Media and Gold Circle Entertainment, that he was unhappy with Michaelson's sales results and performance. Dean told Maudlin that he did not think Michaelson possessed the requisite skills to improve his performance.
On May 18, 2000, a meeting attended by Michaelson, Dean, and Oswald was held. The topic of KMEG's sales was discussed at the meeting. They also discussed Michaelson's problems with Miller. Michaelson told Oswald about Miller's absenteeism, tardiness, chronic billing shortfalls and her escalating hostility towards Michaelson. Dean again defended Miller. Oswald then asked Dean if Miller was supportive or unsupportive of Michaelson. Dean responded by saying that Miller was unsupportive, but that they had to be extremely cautious with Miller because Dean feared that she would sue if discharged.
On May 23, 2000, Michaelson discussed Miller with Maudlin. Maudlin told Michaelson that she agreed with his view that he had cause to discharge Miller and documentation to support that decision. Michaelson then told Dean that Miller remained uncooperative to his efforts to turn her performance around and that it was his intent to discharge her when he had fully staffed the sales department. Between May 1, 2000, and June 5, 2000, Michaelson completed the hiring of three strong sales candidates. He was then in a position to terminate Miller.
On June 7, 2000, Michaelson expressed his sense of optimism about the new sales staff with Dean. On June 9, 2000, with no warning, Dean informed Michaelson of his decision to fire Michaelson. Dean told him it was because of soft sales. Michaelson responded by telling Dean that he now had a sales staff with professionals who could do the job. Dean, however, said it was too late, the decision to terminate him had been made and that there was nothing that Michaelson could do about it. Dean informed Michaelson that the only question was whether he wished to be fired or tender a letter of resignation. Dean informed Michaelson that the letter of resignation option would permit Michaelson to seek new employment while appearing to be employed. Dean also disclosed that if Michaelson resigned Dean would allow Michaelson some input into the wording of a recommendation for him. Regardless of which option Michaelson chose, Dean said that Michaelson would be paid through August 15, 2000. Michaelson replied that his first inclination was to tender a letter of resignation because he felt the performance of the newly hired sales personnel would prompt Dean to reconsider his decision. Dean, however, said that he would not reconsider his decision under any circumstances. On June 9, 2000, Michaelson signed a letter of resignation. Michaelson states in his letter of resignation: "I have decided to pursue other career opportunities and thereby offer my resignation as General Sales Manager Of KMEG effective August 15, 2000." Michaelson was paid through August 15, 2000. He subsequently took a job as a salesperson at Gateway. Michaelson's position as KMEG's general sales manager was filled by another male, Thomas Haack.
This court has considered in some detail the standards applicable to motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a number of prior decisions. See, e.g., Swanson v. Van Otterloo, 993 F.Supp. 1224, 1230-31 (N.D.Iowa 1998); Dirks v. J.C. Robinson Seed Co., 980 F.Supp. 1303, 1305-07 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Laird v. Stilwill, 969 F.Supp. 1167, 1172-74 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Rural Water Sys. # 1 v. City of Sioux Ctr., 967 F.Supp. 1483, 1499-1501 (N.D.Iowa 1997), aff'd in pertinent part, 202 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valline v. Murken
...evidence demonstrates a specific link between the challenged employment action and the alleged animus.3 Michaelson v. Waitt Broad., Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1068 (N.D. Iowa 2002). Once direct evidence has been presented, the employer has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of ......
-
Crawford v. Karcher N. Am., Inc., 5:18-CV-05018
...(7th Cir. 2009); Lee v. Lexicon, Inc., No. 4:11CV00526, 2013 WL 1445656, at *6 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 9, 2013); Michaelson v. Waitt Broad., Inc., 187 F.Supp.2d 1059, 1072 (N.D. Iowa 2002). The plaintiff must also prove that she was treated differently from those employees whose violations were of ......
-
Freeman v. Ace Telephone Ass'n, Civ.04-3538 MJD/SRN.
...93. S.Ct. 1817; Cronquist, 237 F.3d at 928. Managers and staff workers are not similarly situated. See Michaelson v. Waitt Broadcasting, Inc., 187 F.Supp.2d 1059, 1072 (N.D.Iowa 2002). Moreover, employees who work in different departments and hold different positions are not similarly situa......
-
Whitt v. SunTrust Bank
...at her branch, especially considering the possible ramifications to Defendant of overtime violations. Cf. Michaelson v. Waitt Broad., Inc., 187 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1072 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (noting that plaintiff, the general sales manager for a television station, "was in charge of the entire sa......