Reed v. Cedar County
| Decision Date | 08 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-CV-64-LRR.,05-CV-64-LRR. |
| Citation | 474 F.Supp.2d 1045 |
| Parties | Pamela R. REED, Plaintiff, v. CEDAR COUNTY and Cedar County Sheriff Daniel Hannes, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Dorothy A. O'Brien, O'BRIEN & GREVE PLC, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff.
Carlton G. Salmons, Gaudineer, Comito & George, LLP, West Des Moines, IA, John P. Roehrick, Roehrick, Hulting Krull & Blumberg, PC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1051
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................1051
III. JURISDICTION .......................................................1052
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................1052
A. Cedar County Hired Reed as its Jail Administrator ...............1052
B. Cedar County's Written Anti-Harassment Policies .................1053
C. Training on the Second Policy ...................................1053
D. Reed's Personal Life ............................................1053
E. The Harassment ..................................................1054
F. Reed's Reaction to the Harassment ...............................1056
G. Defendants' Reaction to Reed's Complaints .......................1057
H. Reed's Salary History & Work Performance ........................1058
I. The Desk Search .................................................1059
J. The Stipulation for Paid Administrative Leave ...................1059
V. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ......................................1059
VI. REED'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (COUNT I) ..........................1060
A. Hostile Work Environment Claims .................................1061
1. "Tangible Employment Action" .................................1062
a. Reed's paid administrative leave ..........................1062
b. Reed's failure to receive raises ..........................1062
2. The Ellerth/Faragher Affirmative Defense .....................1063
a. Prevention by Cedar County ................................1063
b. Corrective action by Cedar County .........................1064
c. Conclusion ................................................1065
B. Constructive Discharge Claims ...................................1065
VII. REED'S RETALIATION CLAIMS (COUNT II) ...............................1066
A. Employment-Related Retaliation Claims ...........................1067
1. The Prima Facie Case .........................................1067
a. Protected conduct .........................................1067
b. Adverse employment action .................................1068
c. Causal nexus between protected conduct and adverse
employment action .........................................1069
d. Conclusion ................................................1071
2. The Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reasons ....................1071
B. Retaliatory Litigation Claims ...................................1071
C. Conclusion ......................................................1072
VIII. THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY CLAIMS .....................................1072
A. Reed's Title VII Claims .........................................1072
B. Statute of Limitations ..........................................1072
C. Punitive Damages ................................................1074
IX. CONCLUSION .........................................................1074
The matters before the court are the "Motion for Summary Judgment (By Cedar County, Iowa and Sheriff Daniel Hannes (in his Official Capacity))" ("Joint Motion") (docket no. 53) and the "Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Daniel Hannes" ("Sheriff Hannes's Motion") (docket no. 55).
On July 27, 2004, Plaintiff Pamela R. Reed filed a complaint ("Administrative Complaint") with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission ("ICRC") and cross-filed it with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). This Administrative Complaint alleges sexual harassment and retaliation, including complaints of a hostile work environment. Reed exhausted her administrative remedies on the Administrative Complaint.
On April 5, 2005, Reed filed a three-count Complaint in this court against Defendants Cedar County, Iowa ("Cedar County"), and Cedar County Sheriff Daniel Hannes ("Sheriff Hannes"), in his individual capacity and official capacity. Reed alleges that, between June 28, 2000, and November of 2004, while she was working as the Cedar County Jail Administrator, Sheriff Hannes sexually harassed her.
In Count I, Reed states that during her employment, "she was subjected to sex discrimination and sex harassment." Count I involves two different claims — a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment and a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment resulting in a constructive discharge. It involves alleged violations of two different statutes — Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code ch. 216 ("ICRA"). Count I includes allegations against Cedar County; Sheriff Hannes, in his individual capacity; and Sheriff Hannes, in his official capacity.
In Count II, Reed claims retaliation, in violation of Title VII and the ICRA, against Cedar County and Sheriff Hannes, in his individual capacity and official capacity.
In Count III, Reed claims battery, in violation of Iowa common law, against Sheriff Hannes, in his individual capacity. Count III is based upon an incident which allegedly occurred on April 21, 2003.
On April 19, 2005, Cedar County and Sheriff Hannes, in his official capacity, jointly filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The counterclaim was a declaratory judgment action in which Defendants essentially asked for permission to discharge Reed. On April 21, 2005, Sheriff Hannes, in his individual capacity, filed a separate Answer.
On April 27, 2005, Reed filed a Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim. On May 6, 2005, Defendants filed a Resistance to the Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim. On November 7, 2005, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the counterclaim, because it was not ripe. Consequently, the court granted Reed's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and dismissed Defendants' counterclaim without prejudice. See Order (docket no. 24).
On December 7, 2005, Sheriff Hannes, in his official capacity, filed a similar claim for declaratory judgment in the Iowa District Court in and for Cedar County. See Daniel Hannes v. Pamela R. Reed, No. EQCV033533 (Iowa Dist.Ct.2005). On December 23, 2005, Reed filed a motion to dismiss. On March 21, 2006, the state court granted Reed's motion to dismiss. On April 4, 2006, Sheriff Hannes appealed. The state case is currently pending before the Iowa Supreme Court. See Daniel Hannes v. Pamela R. Reed, No. 06-0605 (Iowa 2006).
On June 23, 2006, Reed filed a second complaint ("Second Administrative Complaint") with the ICRC and cross-filed it with the EEOC. In the Second Administrative Complaint, Reed alleges discrimination based on "sex" and "retaliation," and, specifically, she alleges retaliatory litigation based upon Sheriff Hannes's counterclaim and state court action. On September 7, 2006, Reed received an administrative closure letter from the ICRC. The letter provides, in part:
These issues and arguments are already before the courts. It would seem that the determination as to whether the counterclaims are appropriate or retaliatory should be decided in that forum. There would seem to be no useful purpose in this agency investigating issues already before the court.
On August 31, 2006, Defendants filed the instant Joint Motion and requested oral argument.1 On the same date, Sheriff Hannes filed Sheriff Hannes's Motion and requested oral argument. On October 31, 2006, Reed filed Plaintiff's Brief Resisting Motions for Summary Judgment ("Resistance"). On November 1, 2006, Defendants filed a Reply.
On February 1, 2007, the court held oral argument on the Joint Motion and Sheriff Hannes's Motion. Attorney Dorothy A. O'Brien represented Reed. Attorney Carlton G. Salmons represented Cedar County. Attorney Salmons also represented Sheriff Hannes, in his official capacity, and Attorney John P. Roehrick represented Sheriff Hannes, in his individual capacity. Finding the Joint Motion and Sheriff Hannes's Motion to be fully submitted and ready for decision, the court turns to consider them.
The court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Reed's Title VII claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It has supplemental jurisdiction over Reed's ICRA and battery claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court finds it has jurisdiction to review each of Reed's claims.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Reed, as the law requires, see Baer Gallery, Inc. v. Citizen's Scholarship Found. of Am., 450 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir.2006), the court finds the following facts for purposes of these summary judgment motions only:
A. Cedar County Hired Reed as its Jail Administrator
In 2000, Cedar County was in the process of building a new jail and hiring a jail administrator. Reed applied for the jail administrator position. Reed had previously been employed as a jailer in Dickinson County, Iowa, and had obtained a certification as a jailer at the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy ("ILEA") Jailer School.
On June 28, 2000, Reed began working for Cedar County as a jailer under the supervision of Sheriff Hannes. In mid-July of 2000, Sheriff Hannes, Cedar County Chief Deputy Sheriff Lyle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC
...have used the vicarious liability standard to hold employers liable for supervisor harassment. See, e.g. , Reed v. Cedar County , 474 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1061–62 (N.D. Iowa 2007) ; Krambeck v. Children & Families of Iowa, Inc. , 451 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1041 (S.D. Iowa 2006) ; Lopez v. Aramark Unif.......
-
Asplund v. Ipcs Wireless, Inc.
...her sex, and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Reed v. Cedar County, 474 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1061 (N.D.Iowa 2007) (citing Iowa Code § 216.6(1)(a) and Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Hamilton v. Anderson Forest Prods., Inc.
...case is whether the employer's adverse action against the employee was motivated by retaliatory intent." Reed v. Cedar Cty., 474 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1067 (N.D. Iowa 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc., 442 F.3d 1112, 1119 (8th Cir. 2006)). In this......