Podkovich v. Glazer's Distributors of Iowa, Inc., C04-4104-MWB.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. C04-4104-MWB.,C04-4104-MWB. |
| Citation | 446 F.Supp.2d 982 |
| Parties | Alisha PODKOVICH, Plaintiff, v. GLAZER'S DISTRIBUTORS OF IOWA, INC., Glazer's Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., Douglas Howell, and Michael Coffman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Patrick L. Sealey, Sarah Kuehl Kleber, Heidman Redmond Fredregill Patterson Plaza Dykstra & Prahl, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.
Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm, Sioux City, IA, Timothy H. Scott, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 989
A. Factual Background............................................. 989
1. Undisputed Facts............................................ 989
2. Disputed Facts...............................................991
B. Procedural Background...........................................993
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.....................................................993
A. Standards For Summary Judgment................................. 994
B. Arguments Of The Parties....................................... 996
1. The defendants' argument in support of summary judgment......996
2. The plaintiff's arguments in resistance......................997
C. Eligibility To Bring FMLA Claim.................................999
1. Definition of "worksite"................................... 1000
2. Estoppel................................................... 1002
D. The Substantive FMLA Claims................................... 1003
1. FMLA claims generally...................................... 1003
2. Podkovich's interference claim..............................1004
a. Defendants' proffered lawful reason......................1005
b. Failure to return after exhausting FMLA leave........... 1006
3. Podkovich's discrimination claim........................... 1007
a. Prima facie case and causation.......................... 1008
b. Glazer's legitimate reason.............................. 1009
c. Pretext................................................. 1010
E. Podkovich's Title VII and ICRA Retaliation Claims..............1012
1. Federal and Iowa law claims................................ 1012
2. The retaliation claims..................................... 1012
a. Prima facie case and causation.......................... 1014
b. Pretext..................................................1015
F. Podkovich's Pregnancy Discrimination Claim......................1016
1. Prima facie case and causation.............................. 1016
2. Pretext..................................................... 1017
III. CONCLUSION.........................................................1018
In February of 2005, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an Advisory on Alcohol Use in Pregnancy to raise public awareness about this important health concern.1 Although the Surgeon General's Advisory primarily is concerned with alcohol exposure and birth defects, this controversy, which involves, in part, a former employee's allegations of pregnancy and sex discrimination against a distributor/wholesaler of alcoholic beverages presents an ironic twist on the Surgeon General's warning against the combination of pregnancy and alcohol, presumably, however, not precisely in the way the Surgeon General envisioned.
More specifically, the plaintiff asserts her former employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (hereinafter, "FMLA") by failing to restore her to her position after she took leave, due to complications with her pregnancy, and by discharging her in retaliation for taking leave. Additionally, the plaintiff asserts allegations of sex and pregnancy discrimination against her employer under Title VII, averring she was discharged in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment and, or alternatively, for being pregnant. As is typical in these types of cases, the parties dispute not only the ultimate outcome, but also the pertinent factual underpinnings of the case.
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.
Glazer's is a wholesale distributor and broker of wines, spirits and beer, licensed to operate in the State of Iowa.2 Under Iowa law, Glazer's is permitted to act in a wholesale distributor capacity only with respect to beer and wine. Regarding spirits, contrarily, Glazer's acts merely as a broker between the supplier and retailer and essentially markets its supplier's products to assigned retail accounts within a specific geographic area.
In February of 2002, Podkovich began working at Glazer's in the capacity of a spirit sales representative/broker3 at Glazer's Sioux City branch. At the time Podkovich was hired, Glazer's employed five spirit sales representatives throughout Iowa. As part of her duties, Podkovich traveled throughout western Iowa, including the Sioux City and Council Bluffs regions, visiting accounts to market spirits. During her tenure at Glazer's, Mike Coffman directly supervised Podkovich. Coffman worked out of Glazer's Des Moines location, and accordingly, Podkovich's sales area and contacts were assigned by the Des Moines office. Although Podkovich made all of her reports to the Des Moines office, usually by facsimile, she spent little time in Des Moines. On average, Podkovich traveled to Des Moines approximately less than once a month. However, she did maintain a mailbox at Glazer's Des Moines location. In addition, she attended training and sales meetings in Des Moines, in addition to orientation. In contrast, Podkovich utilized the Sioux City office approximately once per week. Podkovich was allowed to use an open desk and telephone in the Sioux City location, as well as a storage space in which she stored display cases and product materials and promotional items. The storage area was locked and in order to access her items, Podkovich would have to requisition a Sioux City employee to open the area. From 2001 to 2003, Glazer's employed less than fifty total employees at the Sioux City branch location.
In September of 2002, Podkovich made a complaint regarding inappropriate emails containing sexual references that she received from a Glazer's supervisory employee named Dan Wanderscheid. Wanderscheid worked at the Sioux City branch office. Podkovich, in accordance with Glazer's anti-harassment policy, complained to Larry Rubida, the Sioux City branch manager. Following an investigation of Podkovich's complaint, Glazer's gave Wanderscheid the choice of either resigning or being terminated. Wanderschied opted to resign. In exchange for his voluntary resignation, Wanderscheid received a severance package from Glazer's. Glazer's did not tell the remainder of their employees about Podkovich's complaint. Rather, the company informed its employees merely that Wanderscheid left the company to pursue other interests.
Months after the incident with Wanderschied, Podkovich became pregnant. Due to certain complications with her pregnancy, Podkovich took four weeks off of work from March 1, 2003, to April 1, 2003. Podkovich filled out a leave request requesting "Family/Medical Leave." Later, in August of 2003, Podkovich again took medical leave due to continued complications with her pregnancy. Prior to this second leave of absence, Coffman wrote Podkovich up on several occasions in July and August of 2003. Specifically, Podkovich was written up once on July 10, 2003. Prior to the current litigation, Podkovich did not receive a copy of this write up even though it was placed in her file. Later, Coffman again wrote two separate write ups critiquing Podkovich's performance both of which were dated August 15, 2003. The August write ups were mailed to Podkovich while she was on leave.
In the midst of these events, Glazer's began negotiating with a company that supplied spirits named Diageo. Glazer's sought to establish an arrangement to exclusively broker Diageo's brands of spirits in Iowa. Glazer's had previously negotiated exclusive distributorship arrangements with Diageo in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. In the summer of 2003, Doug Howell, the president of Glazer's at the time, prepared a proposal for Diageo. The initial proposal was premised upon Diageo paying Glazer's a total commission level that would cover a staff of eight spirit sales representatives throughout Iowa. This initial proposal anticipated that Podkovich would staff the Diageo broker position in Sioux City. However, Howell's initial proposal was rejected by Diageo. Diageo's counterproposal included a commission level that would only support four spirit sales representatives/brokers. Thus, Howell needed to assess which of the five existing brokerage positions would be eliminated. Ultimately, Glazer's restructured its operations and eliminated Podkovich's position. Podkovich was not informed of this arrangement at that time.
Podkovich attempted to return to work during the first week of November of 2003. She tried to make arrangements for her return to work, but she could not elicit a response from Coffman. Finally, Podkovich was advised by Amy Burgess that Howell needed to meet with her in Des Moines, but that the meeting would not be until the week after Podkovich's leave had ended. On November 11, 2003, Podkovich contacted Rusty Harmount, who worked in human resources at Glazer's Texas office to explain the issues she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center-Fort Dodge
...the employer varied from its normal policy or practice to address the employee's situation, see Podkovich v. Glazer's Distributors of Iowa, Inc., 446 F.Supp.2d 982, 1010-11 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (citing Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 271 F.3d 718, 727 (8th Cir.2001)), or by showing that the e......
-
Wysinger v. Automobile Club of So. Calif.
...(Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 823, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 87, 29 P.3d 175; see also Podkovich v. Glazer's Distributors of Iowa, Inc. (N.D.Iowa 2006) 446 F.Supp.2d 982, 1009 [employer treating employee with or rudeness]; Kim v. Nash Finch Co. (8th Cir.1997) 123 F.3d 1046, 1061......
-
Matson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
...her return."); Hofferica v. St. Mary Med. Ctr. , 817 F. Supp. 2d 569, 577 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (same); Podkovich v. Glazer's Distrib. of Iowa, Inc. , 446 F. Supp. 2d 982, 1006 (N.D. Iowa 2006) ("[I]f an employee fails to return, prior to, or immediately upon, the expiration of qualified FMLA lea......
-
O'Donnell v. Passport Health Commc'ns, Inc.
...(14) who was ultimately responsible for creating assignments and monitoring progress. Podkovich v. Glazer's Distributors of Iowa, Inc., 446 F.Supp.2d 982, 991 (N.D. Iowa 2006) (citing Cialini v. Nifisk-Advance America, Inc., 2000 WL 230215, *1 (E.D. Pa. 2000)). 3. The King of Prussia locati......
-
Chapter § 1-11 29 CFR § 825.110. Eligible Employee
...have a serious heart condition, then it should have denied her request for FMLA leave."). • Podkovich v. Glazer's Distribs. of Iowa, 446 F. Supp. 2d 982 (N.D. Iowa...