Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 87-0048-CV-W-9.

Citation709 F. Supp. 1487
Decision Date10 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-0048-CV-W-9.,87-0048-CV-W-9.
PartiesMelody PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

Carroll E. McCue, Gwen G. Caranchini, the Law Offices of Gwen G. Caranchini, Kansas City, Mo., and Linda Skinner, Overland Park, Kan., C. John Forge, Jr., Independence, Mo., for plaintiff.

Paul Scott Kelly, Jr., Jack Yates, Gage & Tucker, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF

BARTLETT, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Melody Perkins brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Perkins, a female supervisor at the General Motors (G.M.) Fairfax Plant in Kansas City, Kansas (Fairfax), contends that she was unlawfully discriminated against by G.M. on the basis of her sex in violation of § 703 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

Perkins maintains that she was the victim of sexual harassment between August 1978, and January 1986, while employed at the Fairfax plant.1 Specifically, Perkins, an avowed homosexual, claims that as a condition of her employment she was forced to have sex with Thomas Spivey, the body shop superintendent and her indirect supervisor, from shortly after she began her employment in 1978 until 1985, when she terminated the relationship. Perkins maintains that in order to obtain sexual favors, Spivey threatened her job and her life and the life of her lesbian lover. She maintains that sex with Spivey was always unwelcome and she points to her homosexual lifestyle and 14 year relationship with her lesbian lover to emphasize the unwelcomeness of Spivey's conduct. Perkins contends that the acts of Spivey constituted quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment.

Perkins also claims that she was subjected to an unwelcome sexually hostile work environment at Fairfax because of the acts of other male employees.

G.M. acknowledges that Perkins and Spivey had a sexual relationship but argues that the relationship was instigated and pursued by Perkins in order to advance her career at G.M. and to demonstrate to her parents, who did not approve of her homosexual lifestyle, that she was a worthy daughter.

G.M. asserts that Perkins failed to establish that she was subjected to an unwelcome sexually hostile work environment.

This action was heard by the court sitting without a jury between November 1, 1988, and January 9, 1989.

II. Findings of Fact

1) As a child, Melody Perkins was sexually abused by her father, a neighbor, neighborhood boys and a bus driver. Her alcoholic mother physically abused her throughout her childhood.

2) After one particularly brutal beating by her mother, Perkins left home at age 18 and moved in with Joseph Holub, a man she later married. During the brief time they lived together, Holub physically abused her. When his abuse became too much for her, Perkins left him, moved in with her grandparents and filed for divorce.

3) Shortly after leaving her husband, she enlisted in the United States Army.

4) While in the Army she met and started a homosexual relationship with Jessica Glenn which culminated in their being "married" in a ceremony conducted by a lesbian friend in July 1974. They regarded this ceremony as having the same effect as a legal marriage and they pledged a life of fidelity to each other. When Perkins told her parents about her relationship with Glenn, they objected strenuously and thereafter were largely alienated from Perkins.

5) The Perkins/Glenn relationship has continued for 14 years. Although Glenn's problems with alcohol strained the relationship, the relationship has lasted because Perkins and Glenn love and care about each other.

6) Although Perkins enjoyed her service in the Army, she did not reenlist because of what she called "witch hunts" by military authorities to eliminate homosexuals from the Army.

7) After leaving the Army, Perkins was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration for training as an air traffic controller. After completing her initial training at the FAA training center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, she was assigned to Ballard Field in Topeka, Kansas.

8) While working for the FAA in Topeka, Perkins and Glenn had a number of difficulties that resulted in physical assaults on one another. In June 1977, Perkins went to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Topeka for assistance and was referred to a psychiatric social worker for evaluation. She told the social worker during an interview that although she was involved in a primary homosexual relationship with Glenn, she "still enjoys men." The social worker was sufficiently concerned about her stability, especially in light of her occupation, that he scheduled her for a complete psychiatric evaluation. Perkins failed to keep three appointments for this evaluation.

9) In June 1978, Perkins believed that she was partially responsible for a near disaster while on duty as an air traffic controller. She felt that she could no longer handle the stress of her job and approached the Veterans Hospital in Topeka for medical justification to be relieved of her duties. This justification was provided by the V.A. in a letter to her Tower Chief indicating that "her increasing anxiety over her job responsibilities are sufficiently high that in her best interest serious consideration should be given to the idea of relieving her of her present duties." Perkins was then placed on a leave of absence from the FAA.

10) On June 19, 1978, while on leave from the FAA, Perkins applied at the Fairfax plant on the recommendation of a female friend who was employed at the G.M. Leeds plant in Kansas City, Missouri.

11) Perkins was initially interviewed by John Muehlbach of the personnel department. He felt that she was a good candidate because her service in the Army and as an air traffic controller indicated an ability to work under pressure and to supervise others.

12) Perkins was also interviewed by several superintendents at the plant, including Thomas Spivey, who was superintendent of the body shop.

13) Perkins was first employed by G.M. Fairfax on July 24, 1978, as a salaried employee in training. She was the first female hired for a production supervisor's position from outside the hourly rolls at the plant.

14) Perkins was told that she would be entering a training program that would expose her to all facets of automobile assembly. Also, she was advised that during her training, she would have to sufficiently impress a superintendent or department head so that she would be sponsored for regular employment in that department after her training. She was also told that if she had not received an offer of employment from a superintendent or department head at the end of her training, she would be released.

15) Shortly after Perkins began her training, Spivey asked her to work for him in the body shop. Perkins was excited about the prospect of finding a sponsor so early in her training and told Glenn how pleased she was to have made such a good impression so early.

16) Perkins successfully completed her supervisor in training program on March 1, 1979, and became a regular supervisor in the body shop performing various supervisory duties until May 1, 1980, when she was laid off as part of an economic reduction in force.

17) Perkins was ambitious and wanted to be promoted to higher management levels as demonstrated by her career interests shown on her annual appraisals. Specifically, she wanted to be the first woman promoted to general supervisor in a production department and eventually she wanted to be superintendent or plant manager.

A. Perkins' Quid Pro Quo Claim

18) Both Perkins and Spivey testified that a sexual relationship existed between them. Their testimony about how often they met and where they met was by and large consistent. However, they disagreed about whether Perkins was coerced to participate in the relationship. For the reasons indicated below, I believe Spivey's testimony and disbelieve Perkins' testimony about how the relationship began and the reasons it continued.

19) Perkins testified that in August 1978, shortly after she started to work in the body shop, Spivey told her that he would like to take her home with him that evening. She initially refused but agreed after Spivey said that if she did not he would fire her. He then gave her a key and written directions to his apartment. She drove herself to his apartment and waited for him to arrive. When he arrived, he forced her to take off her clothes and have sex with him. He demanded that she spend the night. She declined saying that Glenn would be worried. Under pressure from Spivey, she called Glenn and told her that she would be staying with her grandparents that evening. Perkins testified that she and Spivey had sex several times that night. At one time during the night, Spivey waved something at her. Perkins believes it may have been a knife.

20) Perkins testified that thereafter Spivey made similar demands on her approximately twice a month from August 1978, until May 1980, when she was laid off. These encounters with Spivey were usually right after work and lasted two to two and one-half hours with the actual sex only taking a small part of the total time. According to Perkins, the balance of the time they drank cocktails and talked about such things as work, Perkins' goals and ambitions, Jessica Glenn, Perkins' prior marriage, Spivey's daughter and Spivey's interest in horse racing. On some occasions, Spivey prepared a meal or brought in food.

21) Perkins testified that she did not want Glenn to know of these encounters with Spivey so Perkins told her that she was late coming home from the plant due to "meetings related to her job."

22) Perkins testified that several times during 1978-80 she failed to meet Spivey at his apartment or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Erps v. West Virginia Human Rights Com'n
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2009
    ...or offensive.") (citation omitted). The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, in Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1487 (1989), aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom, Perkins v. Spivey, 911 F.2d 22 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, Perkins v. General Mo......
  • Fall v. Indiana University Bd. of Trustees
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 23, 1998
    ...Inc., 992 F.Supp. 731, 742 (D.N.J.1998); Alvey v. Rayovac Corp., 922 F.Supp. 1315, 1330 (D.Wis.1996); Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1487, 1499 (W.D.Mo.1989). 9. The act of harassment in Redman, which involved a school principal assaulting a teacher, is factually similar to Co......
  • Cobb v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 87-982C(1).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • October 24, 1990
    ...by other credible evidence. Morris v. American National Can Corp., 730 F.Supp. 1489, 1494 (E.D.Mo.1989); Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1487, 1499 (W.D.Mo.1989). In the case at bar plaintiff Weiner testified to a number of vindictive statements allegedly made by Company offici......
  • Lyles v. Dist. of Columbia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 20, 2014
    ...because she reported incidents of her subordinate harassing her to her supervisor and he failed to act); Perkins v. General Motors Corp., 709 F.Supp. 1487, 1497–98 (W.D.Mo.1989) (finding that because the plaintiff supervisor “knew how to use the available disciplinary procedures and ha[d] t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT