Naylor v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. C 93-3053.,C 93-3053. |
| Citation | 875 F. Supp. 564 |
| Parties | Bobby NAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Kevin Fors, Parker & Fors, Fort Dodge, IA, for plaintiff.
Christopher Hoyme, Berens & Tate, P.C., Omaha, NE, for defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 569
II. FINDINGS OF FACT .................................................................. 569
A. Undisputed Facts .............................................................. 569
B. Contested Facts ............................................................... 571
III. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .................................................... 571
IV. ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 573
A. Racial Discrimination Claims Under Iowa Code Ch. 216 .......................... 573
1. The Analytical Framework For Naylor's Claim of Racial Discrimination ...... 573
a. The Prima Facie Case .................................................. 574
b. Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason And Pretext ..................... 574
2. Naylor's Prima Facie Showing .............................................. 575
3. Non-Discriminatory Reasons for Georgia-Pacific's Actions .................. 576
4. Pretext for Discrimination ................................................ 576
B. Retaliation Claim ............................................................. 578
1. Analytical Framework for Retaliation Claim ................................ 578
2. Prima Facie Case .......................................................... 578
3. Non-Discriminatory Reasons for Firing and Pretext ......................... 579
C. Offer of Reinstatement ........................................................ 579
1. Introduction .............................................................. 579
2. Hostile Work Environment .................................................. 581
V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 582
Defendant, a corporation which operates a gypsum mining and wall board production facility in Fort Dodge, Iowa, has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's state law claims of race discrimination, and retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, claims he was discharged on the basis of race, and in retaliation for reporting acts of racial discrimination to a company equal employment opportunity officer. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was terminated for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, that Plaintiff had an excessive number of absences which violated Defendant's absentee policy. Defendant further requests that, because it offered to reinstate Plaintiff, the court alternatively toll Plaintiff's claim of wage damages from the date he was offered reinstatement.
Plaintiff Bobby Naylor, an African-American male, filed his complaint in this matter in Iowa District Court for Webster County on July 2, 1993, alleging state law claims of race discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Defendant is Naylor's former employer, Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Georgia-Pacific"). On July 30, 1993, Defendant removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to rest on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), diversity of citizenship must be complete. No plaintiff may be a citizen of any state of which any defendant is a citizen. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch. 267 7 U.S. 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806). That is, all of the parties on one side of the lawsuit must be of diverse citizenship from all of the parties on the other side of the lawsuit. Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co., 204 U.S. 204, 213, 27 S.Ct. 254, 255, 51 L.Ed. 444 (1907); see also American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17, 71 S.Ct. 534, 541, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951).
The federal district courts have always been courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. CONST., Art. III, § 1. "Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction and have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Marine Equip. Management Co. v. United States, 4 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 reh'g denied, 476 U.S. 1132, 106 S.Ct. 2003, 90 L.Ed.2d 682 (1986), citing in turn Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)); see also Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169 (8th Cir.1994) (). A federal court therefore has a duty to assure itself that the threshold requirement of subject matter jurisdiction has been met in every case. Bradley v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 962 F.2d 800, 802 n. 3 (8th Cir.1992); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir.1991); Jader v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir.1991); Barclay Square Properties v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 893 F.2d 968, 969 (8th Cir.1990); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir.1987). In this case, the court concludes that it has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Georgia-Pacific has now moved for summary judgment on all of Naylor's claims. Alternatively, Georgia-Pacific asserts that because it offered to reinstate Naylor to his former position, the court grant it partial summary judgment tolling Naylor's claims for wages from the date of Naylor's refusal to accept reinstatement. A hearing on Georgia-Pacific's motion was held on January 13, 1994. Georgia-Pacific was represented by Christopher Hoyme, Berens & Tate, P.C., Omaha, Nebraska. Naylor was represented by Kevin Fors, Parker & Fors, Fort Dodge, Iowa. The matter is now deemed fully submitted.
For the purpose of this summary judgment motion only, the court finds the following facts:
1. Plaintiff Bobby Naylor is an African-American male who resides in Webster County, Iowa.
2. Defendant Georgia-Pacific is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Georgia, and has its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
3. On September 6, 1988, Naylor began his employment with Georgia-Pacific. On the same date, Naylor signed an acknowledgement in which he indicated he had reviewed a number of policies and procedures required at Georgia-Pacific's operation.
4. Included among the policies that Naylor reviewed prior to commencing his employment with Georgia-Pacific was Georgia-Pacific's "Absentee Control Program" ("the Program").1
5. The Program provides in pertinent part that a worker will receive one point for each occurrence of sickness. Workers can earn a point of credit if they have four consecutive work weeks without being either tardy or having been absent from the work place. The Program also provides for disciplinary measures. A worker receiving three points receives a first written warning. Upon attaining five points, a worker receives a second written warning. A final warning is issued if an employee receives seven points, and the employee is discharged if the employee attains nine points.
6. On March 1, 1989, Naylor received a first written warning dated February 28, 1989, which indicated he had reached the three points level.
7. On June 20, 1989, Naylor received a second written warning dated June 14, 1989, which indicated that he had five points. Naylor received another second written warning on August 22, 1989, which indicated he had five and one-half points. He received another such warning on September 20, 1989, indicating he had five and one-half points.
8. On December 16, 1989, Naylor was sent a final warning because he reached seven points. On August 14, 1990, Naylor was sent another final warning indicating he had eight and one-half points.2
9. As of August 19, 1990, Naylor had accumulated nine points. A meeting with Naylor was held on September 7, 1990, and Georgia-Pacific decided to lower Naylor's point total to seven points due to an injury Naylor suffered and because of a court appearance he was required to attend. A letter dated September 7, 1990, documented these events.3 It then went on to state:
10. On October 23, 1990, he received another final warning which indicated Naylor had seven and one-half points. Naylor subsequently received five additional final warnings dated April 14, 1991, August 7, 1991, October 23, 1991, March 5, 1992, and September 21, 1992.
11. On October 2, 1992, Naylor complained to Georgia-Pacific's Equal Employment Opportunity compliance officer at the Fort Dodge plant concerning the way he had been treated under the Program.
12. Naylor was terminated on October 8, 1992, after attaining nine points on October 6, 1992.4
13. On November 3, 1992, Georgia-Pacific agreed to a settlement offer proposed by Naylor's union in which it offered to reinstate Naylor to his former position. The offer of reinstatement further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwarz v. Northwest Iowa Community College
...1995) (finding that genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on an employee's ADEA claim); Naylor v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 875 F.Supp. 564 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on an employee's claims of race discriminat......
-
Baker v. John Morrell & Co.
...v. Northwest Iowa Cmty. Coll., 881 F.Supp. 1323, 1338 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (test for constructive discharge); Naylor v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 875 F.Supp. 564, 573 (N.D.Iowa 1995). Because the standards for liability are identical, amendment in this novel situation would not deprive John Morrell......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc.
...it was reasonable for the Intervenors to reject it, as that same offer was premised on wearing pants. Cf. Naylor v. Georgia – Pac. Corp ., 875 F.Supp. 564, 582 (N.D.Iowa 1995)(holding that an employee established a material fact question as to whether it was reasonable for him to refuse an ......
-
Madison v. IBP, Inc.
...v. Northwest Iowa Comm. Coll., 881 F.Supp. 1323, 1338 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (test for constructive discharge); Naylor v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 875 F.Supp. 564, 573 (N.D. Iowa 1995). The jury was given one set of liability and damage instructions for all of Madison's claims, and it was not asked......
-
Case Evaluation & Prelitigation Considerations
...workplace may make it reasonable for a plaintiff to reject an unconditional offer of reinstatement. See Naylor v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. , 875 F. Supp. 564, 582 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (“Here, Naylor asserts that because of the racially hostile atmosphere at Georgia-Pacific’s Fort Dodge plant, he coul......
-
Mcle Self-study: a Refresher on and Thoughts About Unconditional Offers of Reinstatement
...204, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Xiao-Yue Gu v. Hughes STX Corp., 127 F. Supp. 2d 751, 757 (D. Md. 2001); Naylor v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 875 F. Supp. 564, 582 (N.D. Iowa 1995); Wilcox v. Stratton Lumber, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 837, 843 (D. Me. 1996); Maturo v. National Graphics, Inc., 722 F.Supp. 91......