Stevens v. Cnty. of Lancaster
| Decision Date | 02 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. A-18-003.,A-18-003. |
| Parties | AMANDA L. STEVENS, APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER, NEBRASKA, APPELLEE. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: KEVIN R. MCMANAMAN, Judge. Affirmed.
Abby Osborn and Joy Shiffermiller, of Shiffermiller Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Patrick Condon, Lancaster County Attorney, Kristy R. Bauer, and Maureen Larsen, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellee.
Amanda L. Stevens was employed by Lancaster County (the County) in two positions: the first at the County Assessor and Register of Deeds Department (Register of Deeds) and the second at the Weed Control Department. After she was terminated from both positions, she filed an employment discrimination action in the district court for Lancaster County. She alleged the County discriminated against her based on her gender in her position at the Register of Deeds and retaliated against her in both positions for her opposition to that discrimination. The County filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. On appeal, Stevens challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment. We conclude that the County met its burden to show there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact. As a result, we affirm the district court's order.
Stevens began her employment with the County in the Register of Deeds in January 2014. She worked in the GIS and Parcel Administration Division, which was internally referred to as the "mapping division." She was one of five employees in the division, and the only woman. Her job title was "land record technician I-mapping." Although the position required some communication with property owners and members of the public, Stevens' main task was recording deed information into the division's internal system. During her time at the mapping division, Stevens was the only technician I, and she worked on over 30 property documents each day.
After Stevens' 6-month probationary period, she received a performance evaluation that approved a merit-based pay increase. The review contained the following comments from Dave Chamberlin, who was one of Stevens' supervisors:
Chamberlin gave Stevens two verbal warnings for data entry errors: the first on August 20, 2014, and the second on October 22, 2014. In both warnings, Chamberlin emphasized the importance of accuracy as opposed to speed. Doug Guess, the GIS manager, was also present during these warnings.
On January 29, 2015, Norman Agena, the Lancaster County Assessor and Register of Deeds, sent Stevens a letter proposing to suspend her for 1 working day for violating the County's personnel rules. The letter explained that Stevens failed to obey her supervisor's directions and that she was incompetent and inefficient in the performance of her work duties. The letter specifically mentioned four data entry errors, which included her misspelling two names in separate transactions, omitting a land grantee in a transaction, and processing an instrument for an incorrect property. After a predisciplinary hearing, Agena reduced the disciplinary action to a written reprimand.
Stevens wrote a rebuttal in response to her written reprimand. Although she admitted to making errors, she felt it was unfair for her to receive discipline for them. The rebuttal explained that Agena had told her that he would evaluate all of her errors "regardless of when the error took place." She was concerned that she could be punished under this standard for errors she made before she received discipline.
After Agena issued the written reprimand, Chamberlin developed a "log file" to help Stevens check her work. At some point, Chamberlin also gave Stevens a "step-by-step" outline of how to perform her duties.
On February 26, 2015, Agena sent another letter to Stevens proposing to suspend her for 1 working day for making five new data entry errors, which were similar to the errors for which she received the previous warnings, in violation of the County's personnel rules. Stevens and a representative from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees--the union to which Stevens belonged--attended a predisciplinary meeting with Agena. Stevens and the union representative did not present mitigating factors that satisfied Agena, so on March 9 he gave Stevens a letter officially suspending her for the day of March 18.
Stevens appealed her 1-day suspension to the Lancaster County Personnel and Policy Board, which held a hearing on Stevens' claims on May 7, 2015. A deputy Lancaster County attorney represented the County, and a union representative represented Stevens. Chamberlin, Agena, and Stevens testified.
Chamberlin testified that the mapping division took disciplinary action when an employee committed more than three mistakes within a 15-day period. The division only became aware of errors in their system when a member of the public informed them about it. Because the public generally only checked the information in the mapping system when property tax or valuation statements were sent, several months could pass between when an employee made an error and when the division caught it. Chamberlin felt that all of Stevens' errors occurred because she valued speed over accuracy.
In late July or early August 2014, Chamberlin removed 15 of Stevens' 19 duties to help her focus on accuracy. Chris Ladegard, a male mapping division employee who held a position that was similar to Stevens' position, performed the duties removed from Stevens' workload. Nevertheless, Stevens still committed 30 errors in the 8 months before the hearing. To Chamberlin's knowledge, Stevens had received discipline for every error she committed. Chamberlin admitted that Stevens performed her job accurately most of the time.
Agena testified that he was less concerned about internal errors than he was about errors that the public sees. He did not allow anyone in his department to make mistakes, but he recognized that people make mistakes all of the time. Agena admitted that he had a conversation with Stevens in which he told her that data entry is the major part of her job and that she is not allowed to make mistakes. Agena did not know whether Stevens felt welcome in his office because he "[doesn't] get that involved with [his] staff and their lives." He assumed that Stevens would see her supervisor if she did not feel welcome.
Stevens testified that when a male employee in the office learned he had committed an error, he would either immediately correct it or ask Stevens to do so. Originally, Stevens likewise corrected her errors. However, Chamberlin had instructed her to notify him of her errors, rather than correcting them on her own. To help minimize her errors, Stevens reduced the distractions in her work space. Chamberlin moved her to another cubicle to reduce her socialization. Chamberlinhad also directly supervised Stevens' work for about 15 minutes to help her reduce her errors, which she felt was helpful.
Stevens presented evidence of a male colleague's errors that "mimicked" the errors for which she was being disciplined. She noted that her male colleague had not been disciplined for these errors. Stevens believed the County's failure to discipline that employee when it had disciplined her was gender discrimination. She felt that the mapping division had a negative, unwelcoming atmosphere. Stevens did not believe it was fair to discipline her for the errors that were discovered within a 15-day period, when she had committed them over a period of months.
In response to Stevens' discrimination allegation, Chamberlin provided further testimony. He admitted that Ladegard, who was presumably the male employee about whom Stevens spoke, had made errors that were similar to Stevens' errors; however, the frequency of Ladegard's errors had not triggered any disciplinary action. To Chamberlin's knowledge, no one in the mapping division had made 30 errors over the course of 8 months.
After receiving the above testimony, the Board affirmed the 1-day suspension.
On April 22, 2015, Agena sent Stevens a letter proposing to suspend her for making three data entry errors, which were similar to her other errors. This proposed suspension was for 2 working days. After a predisciplinary meeting, Agena decided to go forward with the suspension. On May 14, Agena gave Stevens a letter detailing that the suspension would take place on May 20 and 21. On May 26, Agena sent Stevens a letter proposing to suspend her for 5 working days for making five data entry errors, which were also similar to her other errors. On June 4, after a predisciplinary meeting, Agena sent Stevens a letter suspending her from June 15 to June 19. On July 6, Chamberlin presented Stevens with her annual performance evaluation in which he commented that speed and accuracy were still major issues with her efforts to process deeds.
On July 15, 2015, Agena sent Stevens a letter proposing to terminate her employment for making six data entry errors, which were similar to the other errors she had made. Although Agena...
To continue reading
Request your trial