Steck v. Francis

• Decision Date: 21 April 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-3026-MWB.,04-3026-MWB.
• Citation: 365 F.Supp.2d 951
• Parties: Karen STECK, Plaintiff, v. Thomas FRANCIS, Individually and in his official capacity with the City of Fort Dodge Police Department, and the City of Fort Dodge, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

365 F.Supp.2d 951

Karen STECK, Plaintiff, v. Thomas FRANCIS, Individually and in his official capacity with the City of Fort Dodge Police Department, and the City of Fort Dodge, Defendants.

No. 04-3026-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

April 21, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Blake Parker, Fort Dodge, IA, for Plaintiff.

Scott J. Beattie, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION ........................................................956
                      A.  Factual Background ..............................................956
                          1.  The parties .................................................957
                          2.  Allegations of harassment ...................................957
                

                3.  Allegations of retaliation ..................................958
                      B.  Procedural Background ...........................................959
                          1.  The Complaint ...............................................959
                          2.  The motion for summary judgment .............................959
                 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ......................................................959
                      A.  Standards For Summary Judgment ..................................959
                      B.  Steck's Hostile Environment Claim ...............................960
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ....................................960
                          2.  Analysis ....................................................962
                              a.  The required showings ...................................962
                                   i.  Federal and Iowa claims ............................962
                                  ii.  The prima facie case ...............................962
                                 iii.  Actionable harassment ..............................963
                              b.  Determination without regard to the harasser's status....964
                              c.  Relevance of the harasser's status ......................966
                                    i.  Eighth Circuit precedent ..........................966
                                   ii.  Other courts ......................................967
                                  iii.  Additional considerations .........................971
                                   iv.  The proper calculus ...............................973
                              d.  Determination in light of the harasser's status .........974
                      C.  Steck's Retaliation Claim .......................................975
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ....................................975
                          2.  Analysis ....................................................976
                              a.  Continued viability of the burden-shifting analysis .....976
                              b.  First-stage challenges ..................................977
                              c.  Third-stage challenges ..................................978
                              d.  Summary .................................................978
                III.  CONCLUSION ..........................................................978
                

Even apparently immutable legal principles, such as the stone tablet edict of Title VII that "thou shalt not discriminate because of sex,"¹ must be applied through an active analytical process involving such tools as "sliding scales," "burden-shifting analyses," and "balancing tests," rather than a static yardstick, if courts are to evaluate properly the circumstances of each case. After all, the situations to which legal principles must be applied are not lithographs, but motion pictures, involving interactions, not just juxtapositions, of circumstances, persons, and personalities. This case, which involves a female police officer's claims of a sexually hostile work environment created by relatively few sexually-charged comments by a male chief of police and retaliation for complaining about such harassment, demonstrates why such an active analytical process is required.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

The court will not attempt here an exhaustive dissertation of the undisputed and disputed facts in this case. Rather, the court will identify the core of undisputed facts and sufficient of the disputed facts to put in context the parties' arguments for and against summary judgment.

1. The parties

Plaintiff Karen Steck has been employed as a police officer with the Fort Dodge Police Department (the Department) since 1999. Defendant Thomas Francis has been a police officer with the Department since 1977. Francis became the Department's "Acting Chief" in August of 2002, replacing Chief Ivan Metzger, and was appointed as the permanent Chief in September of 2003. The parties agree that Steck and Francis had known each other since Steck was a child, because Steck was a friend of Francis's daughter, she lived in the house next door to the Francises, and at one time, played on a basketball team coached by Francis.

2. Allegations of harassment

Steck contends that she has had two major disputes with the Department during her tenure. Steck's first dispute with the Department, which arose in 1999 after she became pregnant, concerned light duty assignment. However, that dispute was resolved to Steck's satisfaction, after her attorney became involved, when she was transferred to the detective unit. The parties agree that Francis had no involvement in that dispute. The court also does not read Steck's Complaint in this action to assert any claim based on the dispute in 1999, although Steck apparently contends that this first dispute is relevant to the present dispute.

The second dispute, which is the subject of Steck's present lawsuit, arises from four comments by Francis in 2001 and 2003 that Steck contends created a sexually hostile work environment. Francis does not deny making the comments. Rather, Francis and the City contend that the comments are insufficient to create a hostile environment that is actionable pursuant to either Title VII or the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Consequently, the court will describe in turn the four comments upon which Steck's hostile environment claim relies.

Francis made the first comment on which Steck's hostile environment claim is based in the summer of 2001, while Steck and Francis were working with the Storm Lake Police Department during RAGBRAI festivities.² During the course of a meeting with several officers on the street, Francis purportedly noticed Steck eating a large amount of food and commented, "You aren't pregnant again, are you?" Although Steck was apparently offended by the question, she did not complain about this comment to any of her supervisors at the time.

Francis also made the second comment at issue here at some point during calendar year 2001, when Steck and other officers were watching a video on newly-purchased Department equipment. Francis walked by and commented to Steck, "Don't be bringing any videos of you naked in the shower." Steck asserts that this comment, which was directed solely at her in the presence of other male officers, made her feel uncomfortable. Therefore, she told then-Chief Ivan Metzger about the comment. The parties dispute whether Steck asked Chief Metzger not to do anything about the comment, but they agree that Chief Metzger spoke to Francis about the comment, and that Steck felt Chief Metzger's handling of the incident was adequate at the time.

Francis allegedly made the third comment at issue here in March 2003, when he approached Steck to ask her whether or not she had read the local newspaper that morning. When Steck said that she had not, Francis said that there was a letter to Ann Landers that Steck "needed to read because it reminded [him] of [her] when [she] was growing up." Francis said Steck should tell him about it later. Steck alleges that Francis asked her more than once during the day whether she had read the Ann Landers article. Steck eventually read the article in the presence of another detective while en route to interview a subject. The article was about a letter from a twelve-year-old female who was upset about having large breasts. Upon reading the article, Steck became very upset. She complained about Francis's comments to her supervisor, Captain Utley. Captain Utley directed Steck to the Mayor's Office. However, Steck asserts that she reported the incident to her union representatives, Officers Guthrie and Beshey, before she brought her complaint to the Mayor's Office. The union representatives purportedly told Steck that the incident was not a union matter, so that she should get an attorney. Steck then met with the Mayor and the Mayor's assistant to tell them about Francis's comment. The Mayor instituted an investigation as the result of which Chief Francis made a formal apology to Steck for the comment.

Francis made the fourth comment at issue here just a few days after Steck had complained to the Mayor's Office about the third comment. At the time of the fourth comment, Steck and Francis were in the detectives' office. Francis picked up a protective vest from another officer's desk. The vest had no breast cups in it, as it would if it were issued to a female officer, so Francis commented, "I know this is not yours." Steck does not assert that Francis made any express or implicit reference to the lack of breast cups, but nevertheless now argues that Francis used the vest with no breast cups simply as another excuse to comment on Steck's breasts. Although Francis contends that he was only trying to determine the person responsible for police equipment left lying around the office, Steck contends, without dispute from the defendants, that Francis made no other attempt to determine to whom the vest belonged. The record does not indicate that Steck complained about this incident to Francis or anyone else in the Department before filing a civil rights complaint.

3. Allegations of retaliation

Steck contends that, as a result of her complaint of sexual...