Soriano v. Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 July 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 19-cv-01349-REB-STV
• Parties: SILVIA SORIANO, and MARICELA PEREZ, Plaintiffs, v. SEALY MATTRESS MANUFACTURING CO. LLC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

SILVIA SORIANO, and MARICELA PEREZ, Plaintiffs, v. SEALY MATTRESS MANUFACTURING CO. LLC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-01349-REB-STV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

July 29, 2020

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Blackburn, J.

The matter before is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [#48],¹ filed May 15, 2020. I grant the motion.

I. JURISDICTION

I have jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if the issue could be resolved in favor of either party. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586,106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10^th Cir. 1994). A fact is "material" if it might reasonably affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Farthing, 39 F.3d at 1134.

A party who does not have the burden of proof at trial must show the absence of a genuine factual dispute. Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1517 (10^th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1315 (1995). Once the motion has been properly supported, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show, by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence, that summary judgment is not proper. Concrete Works, 36 F.3d at 1518. All the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10^th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 53 (1999).²

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs, Silvia Soriano and Maricela Perez, formerly were employed by Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. ("Sealy") at its manufacturing facility in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez both were members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union , AFL-CIO-CLC Local 12-477-5 (the "Union"), which was the sole bargaining agent for all employees, including plaintiffs, under the term of the Union's collective bargainingagreement ("CBA") with Sealy. (See Motion App., Exh. D art. 2.01 at 4.)

On December 11, 2018, Kim Stover, who worked beside Ms. Perez, approached Latricia Knapps in Sealy's Human Resources department to complain about harassment by Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez. At her deposition, Ms. Stover noted that while previously, Ms. Perez's "daily nitpicks" and complaining had made her uncomfortable, she had "made it work" and "just got through my days dealing with it." (Motion App., Exh. F at 12.) She reported to Ms. Knapps that Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez frequently screamed and yelled about her within her hearing and that she had tried previously to just stay away from them. (See Motion App., Exh. G at 1.)

However, Ms. Stover reported that over the previous three weeks, Ms. Soriano's and Ms. Perez's behavior toward her had escalated. Specifically, Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez had begun to aggressively question Ms. Stover's hours and, in particular, whether she was being offered overtime in preference to more senior employees (particularly themselves).³ Ms. Stover claimed Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez approached her daily, and sometimes multiple times a day, angrily asking her what time she was leaving or questioning why she was still at work.⁴ They would approach her as soon as she walked in the building, before she had even punched in for the day. After their shifts had ended, they repeatedly checked whether Ms. Stover's car was still in the parking lot and then returned to the building wanting to know where Ms. Stover was and why shewas still at work. Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez also questioned other employees daily about Ms. Stover's hours and monitored when she arrived and left work. These conversations frequently were loud and proximate enough so that Ms. Stover could overhear them. Ms. Stover stated she had become scared to walk to her car at the end of her shift and that the mental and emotional distress of the daily confrontations with Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez were effecting her ability to continue in her job. (Motion App., Exh. G at 1; Exh. F at 12-13, 19-21.)

Ms. Knapps commenced an investigation the following day. She first met with two managers, Lee Tarrant and Mark Reinhart, and two Union representatives, Juan Marquez and Angie Chavez, to inform them of Ms. Stover's allegations. Collectively, they selected eight employees - in addition to Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez - to interview.⁵ Ms. Knapps interviewed each of the employees over the course of the next two days. Messrs. Tarrant, Reinhart, and Marquez and Ms. Chavez all were present during the interviews. (Motion App., Exh. A at 17.)

While Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez claimed to have never asked anyone about their hours and insisted they were on friendly terms with Ms. Stover, the other employees interviewed painted a conflicting - and stark - picture of their workplace behavior. The interviewees confirmed that Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez frequently questioned other employees about Ms. Stover's hours, complained about her to other employees within her hearing, and tracked her whereabouts during the day. Theyuniformly described these incidents as angry and intimidating. (Motion App. Exh. G at 2-3.) Indeed, even while Ms. Stover was meeting with Ms. Knapps to make her complaint,

Silvia and Maricela came back into the plant after their shift had ended. Silvia yelled at this employee demanding to know where a specific employee was and what she was doing. She refused to leave the building until she was able to see what this other employee was doing. It became necessary for this employee to get the supervisor because they were making such a scene and refusing to leave. . . . This employee has often witnessed Silvia yelling and cursing as well as Maricela hounding the employee that made the initial complaint.

(Motion App., Exh. G at 2 (interview with Employee #2).)

Beyond Ms. Soriano's and Ms. Perez's treatment of Ms. Stover, however, employees also reported the two created a more general atmosphere of anger and intimidation in the workplace:

Silvia . . . often yells and curses on the floor and throws a fit, rants, and raves when she does not get her way. She stands by the time clock and complains to employees about other employee's [sic] hours and badgers employees about their hours and the hours of others. Silvia has yelled at the department lead on multiple occasions. Silvia demands that the department lead do things the way that she wants and yells frequently making a scene on the production floor. (Motion App., Exh. G at 2 (interview with Employee #1).)

This employee has experienced poor treatment, bullying, and taunting from Maricela and Silvia and brought a note in from a doctor at one point due to the emotional distress that they were causing. (Motion App., Exh. G at 3 (interview with Employee #6).)

Maricela and Silvia complain a lot and are disrespectful as they want to boss everyone around including lead and supervisors to get their way. (Motion App., Exh. G at 3 (interview with Employee #5).)

[T]he employee stated that Silvia is often angry and yells, throws, and slams objects in the department. . . . Silvia makes this employee feel very uncomfortable because she is always yelling at someone or fighting over something. The employee is frustrated and tries to ignore these things because she is afraid to say anything back. The employee states "it has to stop, I can't handle it. . . ." The employee explained not being comfortable at all and feeling stressed every day coming to work not knowing what Silvia is going to say or do that day and what the employee will have to put up with. (Motion App., Exh. G at 2-3 (interview with Employee #8.)

In addition, four of the eight employees interviewed expressed fear of reprisal from Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez if they spoke out; one told Ms. Knapps "I don't want them to have problems and do this to me. I'm just afraid to say anything and have more trouble." (Motion App., Exh. G at 3 (interview with Employee #8).)

Based on these reports, Ms. Knapps and Messrs. Tarrant and Reinhart determined Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez violated Sealy's Workplace Violence Policy, which establishes a "Zero Tolerance Standard" for "violent acts, threats (direct or implied), unlawful harassment, verbal or physical abuse, stalking, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior." (Motion App., Exh. I at 1.) Both Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez acknowledged receiving the policy at the time they were hired. (See Motion App., Exh. J.) Violations of the policy were subject to immediate suspension, up to and including termination. (Motion App.., Exh. I at 2.) Based on the behaviors reported, the impact they were having on the work environment, and the level of fear expressed by many of the employees interviewed, Ms. Knapps and Messrs. Tarrant and Reinhart agreed termination was appropriate. (Motion App., Exh. A at 77; Exh. H at 34.)

The Union subsequently filed a grievance on behalf of Ms. Soriano and Ms. Perez, claiming they had been terminated without "proper cause," as required by the CBA.⁶ (See Motion App., Exh D art. 6.01 at 6; Exh. K.) Sealy responded in writing, as required by the CBA, after which a meeting was held between Ms. Knapps on behalf of Sealy, local Union representatives, Mr. Marquez and Ms. Chavez, and two regional Union employees, Mike Adams and Cody Brown.⁷ At the meeting, in response to the Union representatives' questions as to why progressive discipline had not been used, Ms. Knapps explained Sealy's reasons for believing Ms....