Nava v. Titan Wheel Corp. of Wisconsin
| Decision Date | 04 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C00-3099-MWB.,C00-3099-MWB. |
| Citation | 216 F.Supp.2d 882 |
| Parties | Victor R. NAVA, Plaintiff, v. TITAN WHEEL CORPORATION OF WISCONSIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Jackie D. Armstrong, Brown, Kinsey & Funkhouse, PLC, Mason City, IA, Mark D. Sherinian, Sherinian & Walker Law Firm, West Des Moines, IA, for plaintiff.
Gene R. La Suer, Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, Des Moines, IA, for defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 885
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................. 886
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...................................................... 888
A. Standards For Summary Judgment ................................... 888
1. Requirements of Rule 56 ....................................... 888
2. The parties' burdens .......................................... 888
3. Summary judgment in employment discrimination cases ........... 889
B. Nava's Disability Discrimination Claims .......................... 890
1. Perceived mental disability claim ............................. 892
a. Nava's prima facie case of discrimination .................. 892
b. Nava's rebuttal of Titan's reason for his termination ...... 895
2. Other disability claims ....................................... 896
C. Nava's Sex Discrimination Claims ................................. 897
IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................... 899
In this employment discrimination action, plaintiff Victor Nava alleges he was permanently laid off by defendant Titan Wheel Corporation of Wisconsin in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA"), IOWA CODE CH. 216. Nava's complaint sets forth five Counts, in which Nava generally alleges his termination constituted discrimination because of his disability (Counts I and II), age (Counts III and IV) and gender (Counts IV and V).
Presently before the court is Titan's motion for summary judgment on all Counts. Titan seeks summary judgment on the grounds Nava cannot make out any prima facie case of discrimination, and has failed to rebut Titan's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination. In resistance, Nava withdraws his age discrimination claims, but opposes Titan's motion as to his disability and sex discrimination claims. Nava contends discovery in this lawsuit revealed evidence Titan regarded Nava as having a mental disability, which led Titan to terminate Nava by eliminating his job and refusing to consider him for other positions for which females were selected. In reply, Titan contends Nava has never alleged any mental disability before now, and his perceived mental disability claim is significantly different than what he alleged in his administrative charge. Titan maintains there is no evidence Nava had any protected disability, yet alone any evidence he was perceived by Titan has having a protected mental disability. Titan further maintains the undisputed facts show Titan terminated Nava because his job was no longer needed and thus eliminated, and because there were no open positions for which Nava was qualified.
A trial in this matter is presently scheduled for July 29, 2002. Mr. Nava is represented by Mark D. Sherinian, Esq., of Sherinian & Walker Law Firm, West Des Moines, Iowa, and Jackie D. Armstrong, Esq., from Brown, Kinsey & Funkhouser, P.L.C., Mason City, Iowa. Titan is represented by Gene R. La Suer, Esq., of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa. Oral arguments regarding Titan's summary judgment motion were heard on May 29, 2002. Mr. Sherinian appeared on Nava's behalf, and Mr. La Suer appeared on behalf of Titan.
In 1996 Titan purchased a manufacturing facility in Ventura, Iowa. The Ventura facility was previously owned by the Nieman family, and operated under the name of Nieman's. When Titan initially bought this facility, the work there consisted of assembling brakes and actuators for trailers; assembling and distributing tire and wheel assemblies; and distributing axles and axle components.
Nava was employed at the Ventura facility when Neiman's sold it, and continued working for Titan thereafter. In 1987 Nava was originally hired as a truck driver. He performed this job until 1991 when he was reassigned to the shipping department due to a work-related back injury. Nava stayed in shipping until 1995, after which he worked in the office as a customer service representative. Nava's customer service job was a salaried position involving the sale of axles and axle parts over the phone and to walk-in customers. Less than 5% of his duties were non-customer-service responsibilities, such as answering the phones when no one else was available. Nava was apparently the only customer service representative at the facility until 1996 or 1997. At that time, another employee, Lisa Templeton, was assigned to customer service and performed the same functions as Nava. Templeton was initially hired in 1995 as an accounts clerk, and then performed office work until she transferred to customer service.
Beginning in 1997 or early 1998, the Ventura facility's management changed. At that time, Richard Fisher became the human resources manager. In February 1998 Michael Adamietz assumed the position of operations manager. Adamietz was then Nava's supervisor. Adamietz reported to Richard Kohl, the operations manager of Titan's Slinger facility.
Beginning in 1999, the Ventura facility's product mix changed. Early that year, Titan moved the facility's tire and wheel work to a Titan facility in Des Moines, Iowa. The Ventura facility's operations then consisted only of assembling brakes and actuators, and distributing axles and axle parts. The assembled brakes and actuators were shipped to another Titan facility, and not sold directly to customers. The distributed axles and axle parts were sold directly to customers, but were obtained from a supplier rather than being manufactured by Titan.
That same year, Titan then decided the Ventura facility would be strictly a brake and actuator facility, and began a process of eliminating the facility's axle line. The decision to discontinue selling axles at this facility was made because the profit on the sale of axles was insignificant when compared with the cost of the sales.
During 1999 the following events also occurred:
1) In early February, Nava suffered an emotional breakdown, threatened suicide and was hospitalized for several days. The parties agree that, at the time, Fisher and Adamietz were advised of Nava's emotional breakdown and hospitalization by Nava's wife, who also worked at the Ventura facility. However, the parties dispute how much Fisher and Adamietz actually knew about Nava's emotional condition.
2) In February, Adamietz moved Templeton to a newly-created planner position, in which she handled production planning for the facility's assembly work. Adamietz was required to create this position because the planning work was previously being done by someone at another Titan facility, rather than someone on the Ventura facility's payroll. The planner position was not posted, and Templeton was the only person considered for it. After Templeton was transferred to this position, her customer service workload was assumed by Nava.
3) In October, Titan decided to eliminate the customer service representative position held by Nava. While there is no dispute that Titan management discussed the possibility of eliminating this position before the final decision was made, the parties disagree as to when such discussions occurred.
4) On November 17th, Nava was called into Fisher's office, and was told by Fisher and Adamietz that he was being laid off because his position was being eliminated. Nava was not informed of his lay-off until it happened. Nava then went home, and was never recalled to work by Titan.
After Nava was laid off, no one was hired to replace him. No one disputes that the remaining customer service responsibilities for the sale of the limited volume of axles still in inventory were performed by Adamietz, and that these tasks were sporadic, limited in nature and took very little time. However, Nava alleges that many of his duties as a customer service representative were also performed by the receptionist at the Ventura facility, which Titan denies.
At the time of Nava's lay-off, the receptionist at the Ventura facility was a female temporary employee. This person was terminated in February 2000 because she quit coming to work. The next receptionist was another female temporary employee, who quit after six months. Thereafter, the receptionist position—which was an hourly position—remained unfilled and the receptionist duties were shared by the facility's permanent office employees.
In March 2000, Nava filed a discrimination charge against Titan with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), which was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In his charge, Nava alleged he was told he was being terminated because his job was being eliminated, and later learned his duties were assigned to a younger female employee who was not disabled. Nava indicated he believed Titan discriminated against him based on a physical disability, age and gender. The ICRC administratively closed its file on Nava's charge in July 2000. The EEOC adopted the ICRC's findings and administratively closed its file on Nava's charge in October 2000. Nava received right-to-sue letters from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sells v. City of White Bear Lake
...the suspicion that the City is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." See Nava v. Titan Wheel Corp. of Wisc., 216 F. Supp. 2d 882, 898 (N.D. Iowa 2002), citing Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1137 (1998). Plaintiff dispute......