Morris v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. C04-3003-MWB.,C04-3003-MWB. |
| Citation | 435 F.Supp.2d 887 |
| Parties | Lee A. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Mark D. Sherinian, Sherinian & Walker, PC, West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
Daniel L. Hartnett, Crary-Huff-Inkster-Hecht-Sheehan-Ringenberg-Hartnett-Storm Sioux City, IA, John F. Thomas, Patrick J. Barrett, Timothy J. Pugh, McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, PC, Omaha, NE, for Defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................892
A. Factual Background .......................................................892
1. Undisputed facts .....................................................892
2. Disputed facts .......................................................894
B. Procedural Background ....................................................895
1. The complaint ........................................................895
2. The motion for summary judgment ......................................896
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................896
A. Standards For Summary Judgment ...........................................896
B. Timeliness Of The Administrative Charge ..................................897
1. Arguments of the parties .............................................897
2. Analysis .............................................................898
a. Limitations period for the administrative charge .................898
b. Continuing violations ............................................901
C. Morris's Hostile Environment Claim .......................................905
1. Arguments of the parties .............................................905
2. Federal and Iowa law claims ..........................................905
3. The prima facie case .................................................905
a. Based on race ....................................................906
i. Race-based comments and conduct ............................906
ii. Race-neutral comments and conduct ..........................907
iii. Looking for the tie ........................................907
b. Actionable harassment ............................................908
D. Morris's Retaliation Claim Under Chapter 91A .............................911
1. Arguments of the parties .............................................911
2. Analysis .............................................................911
III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................913
In this hostile work environment employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, a sanitation worker, alleges the only aspect of his work environment that was kept clean was the equipment he sanitized. The plaintiff, contending the defendant should have cleaned up more than just its machinery, has filed both federal and state hostile work environment claims against the defendant. In response, the defendant has moved for summary judgment, claiming certain facets of the plaintiff's race discrimination claims are time barred under both Title VII and Iowa Code Chapter 216. The plaintiff has resisted the defendant's motion, asserting his claims are timely because the harassment he endured over the course of several months constituted a continuing violation, thus tolling the limitation periods enunciated in both Title VII and Iowa Code Chapter 216. Failing its procedural defense, the defendant asserts the familiar incantation that the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case regarding his race discrimination claim under a hostile work environment theory. Specifically, the defendant contends the conduct the plaintiff complains of is not actionable under Title VII because the statute was not intended to provide relief from "the ordinary tribulations of the workplace."1
The plaintiff has also filed a state wage dispute retaliation claim against the defendant based on facts inextricably intertwined with his employment discrimination claim. The defendant has moved for summary judgment with respect to this claim on the grounds the plaintiff was not underpaid and therefore, is not entitled to relief. In the alternative, the defendant argues the plaintiff was not discharged, but rather, voluntarily abandoned his position. In response, the plaintiff asserts he has stated a viable claim under Iowa's Wage Payment Collection Law and that he was constructively discharged because he was not allowed to return to work.
The core undisputed facts and sufficient detail of the disputed facts are set forth below to put in context the parties' arguments for and against summary judgment.
The defendant, Conagra Foods, Inc. ("Conagra"), is an international conglomerate that operates a facility in Britt, Iowa. At the time of the alleged misconduct, Conagra employed approximately 134 individuals at the Britt location, including the plaintiff, Lee Morris. Morris is an African-American male, residing in Hancock County, Iowa. He was initially hired by Conagra on November 30, 2000, as a third-shift sanitation worker. Morris was the only African-American employed on the third shift, and possibly the only African-American working at the Britt plant throughout his employment.
In May of 2002, Morris began making complaints to his supervisors and managers about problems he was experiencing with another coworker, Daniel Godinez. Conagra hired Godinez on May 6, 2002, also as a third-shift sanitation worker. Shortly after Godinez was hired, Morris told his supervisor, Aaron Long, that Godinez had intentionally sprayed him down with a pressure hose and purposely bumped into him. Morris indicated to Long that he felt Godinez's actions were intentional because Dawn Perkins, another third-shift sanitation worker, had informed him Godinez told her he did not like black guys immediately before he sprayed Morris with the hose.2 Long, along with another supervisor, Lyman Dickens, questioned Godinez after receiving Morris's complaint. Although Godinez denied intentionally spraying Morris with the hose, he did admit he did not like black men because he was raped by a black man when he was in prison in California.3 Upon learning this fact, Dickens asked Godinez if he had a problem working with black people. Godinez indicated he needed the job and did not have a problem working with Morris, but that he would not be seen socializing with Morris outside of work. Although Dickens created a written report of the investigation, the report fails to mention or even imply that Godinez harbored animosity toward African-Americans. Dickens's report further indicates Long told Morris that if there was any further confrontation between himself and Godinez, both men would be suspended.
After. Morris made his initial complaint, Morris continued to experience problems at Conagra, most of which occurred in the locker room. Sometime during late May and early June of 2002, Morris complained to Dickens because dirty frocks and gloves were piled in front of Morris's locker. On another occasion, Morris reported to Dickens that cigarette ashes had been placed in front of his locker. Morris also voiced complaints to Dickens regarding an incident where pop was dumped in his hat and the sleeves on his uniform were taped together. Additionally, Morris reported that his rain gear was sliced with a knife on three to four occasions and his boots were cut on another occasion. In response, Dickens indicated he would try to watch the locker room more closely in order to discover who was responsible for the actions Morris complained of. Dickens did not further report the incidents, however, because he felt the conduct was typical of common locker room pranks. Morris, however, took it upon himself to further report the incidents and informed Michael Zelenak, the human resource manager, of the problems he was experiencing at Conagra. On June 12, 2002, Zelenak made a written record of Morris's complaints. The note indicates Zelenak informed Morris he would look into the problems occurring in the locker room, but that there might not be much he could find out without more information suggesting which coworker was responsible. At some point, Morris also informed Daniel Birkey, the accounting manager, and Kevin Philebar, the plant manager, about the various problems he encountered in the locker room.
On approximately June 17, 2002, Morris was transferred to the second-shift maintenance crew. After he was transferred, Morris experienced no further incidents involving Godinez or the locker room. However, approximately two to three months after his transfer to the maintenance crew, Morris made another complaint, this time concerning a statement made by Long. Morris reported to Philebar, the plant manager, that another supervisor, Robert Bobert, told him Long referred to Morris as a "dumb black guy." Philebar conducted an investigation of Morris's complaint and talked to Long, who denied making the comment. Philebar also questioned Bobert, who denied Long had made such a statement to him. Based on his conversations with Long and Bobert, Philebar concluded Morris was not being truthful and ceased investigating his claim.
Due to an elimination in production, Morris was temporarily laid off sometime in September 2002. He was rehired approximately one month later as part of the sanitation crew.4 Morris returned to work without incident until approximately April 25, 2003,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc.
...be said to have caused the later acts of harassment to be unrelated to the earlier, otherwise untimely acts.” Morris v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 887, 902 (N.D.Iowa 2005); see also Rowe v. Hussmann Corp., 381 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir.2004) (Finding a continuing violation because “it ......
-
Elam v. Regions Financial Corp.
...325, 332 (8th Cir.2005) (citing Henthorn v. Capitol Commc'ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1024 n. 2 (8th Cir.2004)); Morris v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 887, 905 (N.D.Iowa 2005) ("It is widely accepted in the Eighth Circuit that generally no distinction is made between claims based on fed......
-
Tegtmeier v. PJ Iowa, L.C.
...right of an employee to prevent unauthorized wage deductions requires a deduction to have been made. See Morris v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 887, 911 (N.D.Iowa 2005) (finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for violation of Iowa Code § 91A.5 because the complaint "glosses ov......
-
González-Santiago v. Baxter Healthcare S.A.
...comments and gesture subjectively offensive, they do not constitute objectively offensive conduct. See, Morris v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 435 F.Supp.2d 887, 893, 907 (N.D. Iowa 2005)(dismissing hostile work environment claim of employee the human resources manager called a "thief" when he info......