Sowers v. Kemira, Inc.

Decision Date17 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. CV487-170.,CV487-170.
Citation701 F. Supp. 809
PartiesBetty SOWERS, Plaintiff, v. KEMIRA, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles Ashman, Jeff Lasky, Elizabeth F. Bunce, Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff.

G. Paris Sykes, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., R. Jonathan Hart, Savannah, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

EDENFIELD, District Judge.

This Title VII action was tried before the Court on February 1, 2 and 3, 1988. Plaintiff Betty Sowers alleges that her employer, defendant Kemira, Inc., subjected her to (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment, (2) retaliation for her assertion of Title VII rights, and (3) wage discrimination based on sex. Having heard the testimony of the witnesses and the arguments of counsel, and having reviewed the exhibits, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent that any findings of fact constitute conclusions of law, they are adopted as such. To the extent that any conclusions of law constitute findings of fact, they are so adopted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiff, Betty Sowers, is a 37 year old female. Ms. Sowers has no college degree, but she has some five years of work experience in industrial engineering. She has the equivalent of a two-year degree in industrial engineering pursuant to in-house training received from a former employer.

2. Early in 1985 (late January or early February), Ms. Sowers was referred to E.V. (Jack) Skinner, Manager of the Human Resources Department at Kemira, Inc., by an employment agency. At that time, there was a position open for an inventory control clerk in the company store.

3. Mr. Skinner invited the plaintiff to interview for the position of inventory control clerk. An interview was conducted in Mr. Skinner's office, during which Mr. Skinner was made aware of plaintiff's background in industrial engineering, and her desire to find a job in that field.

4. Plaintiff also interviewed with the supervisor over the inventory control clerk position, Fred Hunley, who was impressed with plaintiff's qualifications for the position. Additionally, at some point in the hiring process, Mr. Skinner introduced plaintiff to Ray Brinson, who would be her second level supervisor in the inventory control clerk position. Plaintiff found it strange that Mr. Brinson did not inquire into her qualifications.

5. Mr. Skinner informed plaintiff that she was being offered the inventory control clerk position. With respect to plaintiff's desire to obtain an industrial engineering position, Mr. Skinner indicated that by accepting the inventory control clerk position, she would then have her foot in the door and would be in a position to advance to the engineering department if a vacancy arose.

6. Plaintiff began working at Kemira, as an inventory control clerk in the company store, on February 11, 1985. Her starting salary was $1,050.00 per month.

7. The plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Fred Hunley, testified that plaintiff's work performance as an inventory control clerk was satisfactory. He had no complaints or problems with plaintiff, and acknowledged that she arrived early for work "quite often."

8. On March 1, 1985, Charlyn Green resigned from the position of plant buyer at Kemira. Mr. Skinner invited plaintiff to apply for the position.

9. In early March, 1985, Mr. Skinner conducted an interview with plaintiff, ostensibly for the purpose of evaluating her qualifications for the position of plant buyer. During the interview, Mr. Skinner made inquiries into plaintiff's personal situation, including whether she drank alcoholic beverages, and whether she was sexually satisfied with her husband.

10. Plaintiff was never seriously considered for the position of plant buyer. On April 1, 1985, the plant buyer's position was filled by Frank Hester, who had worked at Kemira between 1977 and 1983. Mr. Hester had obtained his M.B.A. from Wake Forest University during his time away from Kemira. Mr. Hester was clearly more qualified than plaintiff for the position of plant buyer.

11. During her tenure as an inventory control clerk, plaintiff was intent on obtaining a position as an industrial engineer, consistent with her background, qualifications, and interest. Plaintiff approached Mr. Gene Johnson, who was the only industrial engineer at Kemira, and informed him of her qualifications and interest. Mr. Johnson indicated that he could, in fact, use some assistance in meeting his responsibilities as industrial engineer. The demands on the industrial engineering position at Kemira were exceptionally heavy at that time because Kemira (formerly American Cyanamid) was still in a transitional period as a result of a corporate takeover.

12. Between February 11, 1985, and May 21, 1985, plaintiff met several times with Dr. George Roberts, Vice President of Operations at Kemira's Savannah plant, and discussed with him the possibility of a promotion to the Industrial Engineering Department.

13. Dr. Roberts authorized plaintiff's promotion to the position of industrial engineering aide, effective May 21, 1985. The promotion was on a six-month trial basis, with the understanding that if plaintiff performed acceptably, the position was to be made permanent. Gene Johnson, the plant's only industrial engineer, became plaintiff's supervisor. Plaintiff's salary was increased from $1,050.00 per month to $1,207.00 per month.

14. In her position as an industrial engineer aide, plaintiff was classified as a Level-G non-exempt salaried employee. In 1985, the recommended salary range for Level G employees began with a minimum salary of $1,392.00. Plaintiff was paid below the minimum recommendation at $1,207.00 per month; however, it was understood that if plaintiff performed well and her position became permanent, her salary would be increased at the end of her six-month trial period.

15. Plaintiff was replaced as inventory control clerk by a temporary employee. It was understood that if plaintiff's trial as an industrial engineer aide did not work out, she could return to the position of inventory control clerk.

16. Plaintiff learned quickly, and applied skills acquired in prior employment, in performing her job as industrial engineering aide. Plaintiff's supervisor, Gene Johnson, was generally pleased with her job performance.

17. In a memo dated September 11, 1985, Mr. Johnson indicated to his supervisor, R.W. Leach, that he was satisfied with plaintiff's job performance. In the memo, Mr. Johnson strongly recommended that the Engineering Aide position be made permanent. Mr. Johnson testified that he was only recommending in his memo that the position be made permanent, "not necessarily" to be filled by Betty Sowers. The Court reads Mr. Johnson's memo as a recommendation that plaintiff's employment as engineering aide be made permanent. On examination, Mr. Johnson somewhat reluctantly acknowledged that his intention at the time his September 11 memo was drafted was to make plaintiff a permanent engineering aide.

18. At some point late in 1985, or early in 1986, Dr. Roberts informed Jack Skinner that Betty Sowers' engineering aide position was to be made permanent, and directed him to prepare a salary recommendation. Mr. Skinner never prepared the salary recommendation as directed.

19. Kemira has in force a Progress Review Policy which requires that supervisors formally review the performance of employees under their supervision at least once per year. As part of the formal review process, an employee's immediate supervisor must complete a written progress review form, which form is to be discussed with the employee. The progress review form calls for evaluation of an employee's job performance in the areas of results, job knowledge and skills, dependability, initiative, and relationships.

20. On September 25, 1985, Gene Johnson completed a progress review form which evaluated plaintiff's job performance in the position of industrial engineering aide for the period from May 21, 1985 through September 25, 1985. Plaintiff's performance was rated as "consistently acceptable" in all categories except for initiative, in which category plaintiff's performance was rated as "superior." One of the categories, dependability, encompassed consideration of plaintiff's attendance and tardiness record.

21. During the period from May 21, 1985, through September 25, 1985, plaintiff missed approximately six full days of work, and portions of approximately three other days. These absences were generally due either to illness or to plaintiff's need to attend to her children. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the amount of plaintiff's absenteeism, but not to the extent that he felt it necessary to refer to absenteeism in the progress review form. Notwithstanding plaintiff's absences, Mr. Johnson rated plaintiff consistently acceptable in dependability, and her overall progress review was a good one.

22. Between September 25 and December 19, 1985, plaintiff's absenteeism frequency continued largely as before. During this period, plaintiff missed approximately one full day for sickness, and portions of approximately four other days, either for sickness or in order to attend to her children. On December 19, 1985, Mr. Johnson discussed with plaintiff the progress review he had previously completed on September 25, 1985. Mr. Johnson made clear his general satisfaction with plaintiff's performance, and orally expressed his desire that plaintiff reduce her level of absenteeism, and limit her use of the phone for personal calls. Mr. Johnson did not consider plaintiff's absenteeism and phone use sufficiently troublesome to refer to it on the written evaluation.

23. After plaintiff's six month trial period was completed (November 21, 1985), she began to make inquiries as to whether and when her job would be made permanent and her salary increased. Mr. Johnson...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Whitten v. Farmland Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • March 19, 1991
    ...Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 385, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985); Sowers v. Kemira, Inc., 701 F.Supp. 809, 825 (S.D.Ga.1988). This causal link may be established by proof of change in an employer's conduct, proximity of an adverse employment de......
  • Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dept.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 11, 1999
    ...See Heyne, 69 F.3d at 1479-80; Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Servs., Inc., 711 F.2d 1524, 1532 (11th Cir.1983); Sowers v. Kemira, Inc., 701 F.Supp. 809, 816 (S.D.Ga.1988). In this case, because of its high probative value, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the challenged testi......
  • Lewis v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 16, 2002
    ...exercised a proleptic veto. His letter "disqualified" Ms. Lewis, eliminating her from further consideration. See Sowers v. Kemira, Inc., 701 F.Supp. 809, 823 (S.D.Ga.1988) (finding causal link sufficient when alleged harasser, though not the ultimate decision maker, had a "great amount of i......
  • Mills v. Wex-Tex Industries, Inc., 96-D-1616-S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • September 25, 1997
    ...negative treatment." Clark v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 939 F.Supp. 884, 889 (S.D.Ga.1996) (citing Sowers v. Kemira, Inc., 701 F.Supp. 809, 823 (S.D.Ga. 1988) (finding a prima facie case of quid pro quo sexual harassment where plaintiff's rejection of supervisor's advances result......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Theories of liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases The substantive law
    • May 6, 2022
    ..., 411 U.S. at 804. For example, the plainti൵ could establish pretext with evidence of employment records. Sowers v. Kemira, Inc ., 701 F.Supp. 809 (S.D. Ga. 1988) (in light of plainti൵’s ive years of work experience without complaint, and her supervisor’s assessment of her work, defendant “......

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