O'Shea v. Yellow Technology Services, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1997
• Docket Number: No. CIV. A. 96-2370-GTV.,CIV. A. 96-2370-GTV.
• Citation: 979 F.Supp. 1390
• Parties: Maurine O'SHEA, Plaintiff, v. YELLOW TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

979 F.Supp. 1390

Maurine O'SHEA, Plaintiff, v. YELLOW TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

No. CIV. A. 96-2370-GTV.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

September 26, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James E. Kunce, Overland Park, KS, for Plaintiff.

Robert W. McKinley, Tedrick Addison Housh, III, Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Kitchin & McLarney, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VAN BEBBER, Chief Judge.

In this action, plaintiff claims defendant subjected her to hostile work environment sexual harassment and age-related hostile work environment harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination (KAAD), K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The case is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted.

I. Summary Judgment Standards

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupportable claims or defenses, and Rule 56 should be interpreted in a way that accomplishes this purpose. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The court's proper inquiry is whether there is a need for a trial; in other words, whether "there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. This burden may be discharged by "showing" that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2553-54. Once the moving party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who "may not rest on mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. at 2514. Thus, the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. See id. The court reviews the evidence on summary judgment under the substantive law and based on the evidentiary burden that the party will face at trial on the particular claim. See id. at 254, 106 S.Ct. at 2513.

II. Factual Background

The following facts are either uncontroverted or based on evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Immaterial facts and facts not properly supported in the record are omitted.

Defendant hired plaintiff as a systems programmer in June 1991, and promoted her to systems programmer specialist in October 1992. Plaintiff's primary responsibilities were to upgrade and maintain the products associated with defendant's MVS mainframe system.

Plaintiff alleges the following incidents of sexual and/or age-related harassment occurred while she was on the MVS programming team:

1. In 1993, someone placed a fake human bowel movement in plaintiff's chair and spread toilet paper in her cubicle.

2. Plaintiff was not invited to join the male programmers when they left the building for lunch. She was only included when she invited herself.

3. On an unspecified date, David Corwin entered plaintiff's cubicle and shouted that she was doing things incorrectly and was going to "screw up the whole system." According to plaintiff, Corwin never talked to the younger male programmers in such a fashion.

4. Also on an unspecified date, Ted Keller approached plaintiff in her cubicle and loudly announced that he knew how old she was.

In January 1994, plaintiff joined the team of system programmers working on UNIX operating systems. As a member of the UNIX team, plaintiff's team leader was Vicky Logan, a senior systems programmer. Ms. Logan, in turn, reported to Joe Searle, the manager of systems programming.

In February 1994, defendant began to implement a computer project called FileNet, which was installed on a UNIX operating system. Defendant placed Gary Jones on the UNIX team as a UNIX systems administrator. Jones was involved in technical support of the FileNet project and did not supervise plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Jones created a hostile work environment by directly harassing her and by demeaning her in the eyes of their coworkers. The record refers to following incidents directly and indirectly arising out the conflict between plaintiff and Jones:

1. On June 3, 1994, plaintiff told Joe Searle, that she was upset because Jones was working with consulting personnel on the installation of FileNet equipment and not explaining the process to her. Searle told plaintiff she needed to get more involved if she felt she needed to know what Jones was doing.

2. On June 16, 1994, plaintiff complained to Searle that Jones was attending a programming class instead of her. She further stated that Jones did not communicate with her, that the "men around here" thought they were better than she, and that these problems made it difficult for her to do her job.

3. On various and unspecified occasions, plaintiff overheard Jones making fun of his wife and making derogatory comments about women talking too much and being less intelligent than men.

4. On an unspecified date, plaintiff overheard Jones telling his coworkers about a dream in which he watched a woman jumping naked on a trampoline and described how the woman's breasts looked as she jumped.

5. On an unspecified date, plaintiff overheard Jones saying, "Playboy is superior to a wife because at least with Playboy you get variety."

6. On another unspecified date, plaintiff witnessed a coworker, who was doing an impression of Jones, state, "I just don't get it. I treat women like crap and they just keep coming back for more." Joe Searle also witnessed this imitation but did not say or do anything in response.

7. Jones repeatedly commented on his belief that plaintiff was planning to file a sexual harassment suit against him. These and other comments caused plaintiff's male coworkers to cease "almost all contact with her" and to "treat her like a nonentity."

8. On one occasion, Jones and fellow team member Charles Bockting completely ignored plaintiff when she attempted to discuss the FileNet project.

9. The UNIX team members would not give necessary passwords to plaintiff claiming she was not experienced enough. The password was given to two younger male employees who were "much less experienced" than plaintiff.

10. At an August 1, 1994 meeting, plaintiff complained that Jones had stated that plaintiff was incompetent and incapable of doing her job and that plaintiff was going to file a harassment claim against him. Jones admitted that he had said plaintiff was incompetent and incapable because he believed a former MVS systems programmer could not step into the role of a UNIX systems administrator, as plaintiff had.

11. On August 2, 1994, plaintiff and Keller discussed plaintiff's continuing problems with Jones and other male coworkers. Specifically, plaintiff said she could no longer do her job because Jones was turning her team members against her, members of her team were completely uncooperative in providing necessary information, and that her reputation was being "trashed." Keller attempted to discuss these concerns, but the meeting ended when Keller yelled, "Can't you see that you're the problem." At this point, plaintiff said she quit, and headed directly to the office of Jim Flemming, defendant's Manager of Human Resources. In Flemming's office, plaintiff, Flemming, and Keller discussed plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff subsequently rescinded her resignation and agreed to provide weekly status reports regarding any continuing problems with Jones.

12. On several occasions after the August 1, 1994 meeting, plaintiff approached Keller to discuss her continuing problems with Jones. On one unspecified occasion, Keller refused to acknowledge that there was a problem and told plaintiff to go on vacation and get a tan. Later in this same conversation, Keller suggested plaintiff use Retin-A, a lotion for aging skin.

13. Plaintiff's team members initially respected her until they were influence by Jones' acts and opinions toward plaintiff.

14. On August 24, 1994, Keller took plaintiff and fellow team member Glenn Richards out to lunch. According to plaintiff, Richards was cold to her throughout lunch and would not speak to her beyond monosyllabic answers. Shortly after lunch, plaintiff noticed that Richards had a file that she needed. She asked Richards for the file; he refused to give it to her. Plaintiff immediately met with Keller, Flemming and Richards. A discussion of team work and information sharing ensued until Flemming yelled at plaintiff, "What I see before me is an extremely paranoid person totally lacking in self-confidence." At this point, plaintiff said, "I will see you in court."

Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

III. Discussion

A. Allegations Properly Before the Court

A plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing suit under Title VII, the ADEA, and the KAAD. See Aramburu v. The Boeing Co., 112 F.3d 1398, 1409 (10th Cir.1997). Title VII and the ADEA require that a plaintiff precede her court filing by an administrative charge with the EEOC. Additionally, if a...