Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., No. C 93-4051.
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | BENNETT |
| Citation | 869 F. Supp. 1413 |
| Parties | Frederick THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. ST. LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., St. Luke's Gordon Recovery Center a/k/a The Gordon Center Ann Jons, Craig Mansfield, and Steve Middleton, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C 93-4051. |
869 F. Supp. 1413
Frederick THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
ST. LUKE'S HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., St. Luke's Gordon Recovery Center a/k/a The Gordon Center Ann Jons, Craig Mansfield, and Steve Middleton, Defendants.
No. C 93-4051.
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.
November 21, 1994.
Maurice B. Nieland and Michael W. Ellwanger of Rawlings, Nieland, Probasco, Killinger, Ellwanger, Jacobs & Mohrhauser, Sioux City, IA, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BENNETT, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................... 1423
A. The Complaint ....................................................... 1424
1. Lack Of A Federal Question ........................................ 1424
2. Construction Of A Plausible Federal Claim ......................... 1425
a. A Title VII Claim? ............................................ 1426
b. A Claim Under 42 U.S.C. ž 1981? .......................... 1426
B. The Motion For Summary Judgment ...................................... 1427
II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ......................................... 1429
III. FINDINGS OF FACT ...................................................... 1431
A. Undisputed Facts .............................................. 1431
B. Disputed Facts ................................................. 1431
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................ 1432
A. The ž 1981 Claim Of Race Discrimination .................... 1432
1. Elements Of A ž 1981 Claim ................................. 1432
869 F. Supp. 14232. The Analytical Framework For Thomas's ž 1981 Claims ................ 1433 3. The Prima Facie Case .................................................... 1434 4. Legitimate, Non-discriminatory Reason And Pretext ....................... 1435 5. Thomas's Discrimination Claims Under ž 1981 ........................ 1435 B. Claims Under Iowa Code Ch. 216 ............................................ 1436 C. Breach Of Covenant Of Good Faith .......................................... 1437 D. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress .............................. 1438 1. Tort Claims And Iowa Code Ch. 216 .................................. 1438 2. Elements Of The Tort ............................................... 1439 3. The Outrageousness Of Defendant's Conduct .......................... 1439 E. The Defamation Claim ...................................................... 1441 1. Defamation And Defamation "Per Se" ........................ 1441 2. Qualified Privilege ................................................ 1442 3. Defendants' Grounds For Summary Judgment ........................... 1444 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................... 1445
Defendants, a substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation center and some of its managerial personnel and the center's corporate parent, have moved for summary judgment on a former employee's claims of constructive discharge and disparate treatment race discrimination and pendant state law claims of race discrimination, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The former employee's claims arise out of the defendants' alleged responses to accusations by patients that the former employee had been under the influence of cocaine while on the job. Those responses included initial demands that the former employee submit to a urinalysis, which were later withdrawn, and allegedly pressuring the former employee to take a different job with the rehabilitation center. The corporate parent of the rehabilitation center has moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not an employer of the plaintiff. The other defendants have moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the employee cannot make any showing of race discrimination, that Iowa has never recognized a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment situations, that the employee has not alleged any conduct on the part of defendants that is sufficiently outrageous to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that defendants have good defenses of truth and qualified privilege to the employee's defamation claim on which there is no genuine issue of material fact.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Frederick Thomas, who is Afro-American, filed his complaint in this matter on May 20, 1993, alleging constructive discharge and disparate treatment race discrimination and various state-law statutory and tort claims. Defendants are St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., St. Luke's Gordon Recovery Center a/k/a The Gordon Center (the Gordon Center or the Center), which is a substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation center, Ann Jons, the former manager of adult in-patient programs at the Center, Craig Mansfield, a therapist at the Center, and Steve Middleton, the director of adult services at the Center. Thomas's allegations, which are discussed in more detail below, included constructive discharge and disparate treatment race discrimination, race discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 601A (now Iowa Code Ch. 216), breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. Thomas asserts that the actions of the defendants resulted in his constructive discharge from his employment as a rehabilitation technician with the Center on July 2, 1992. On February 4, 1992, Thomas filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission alleging unlawful employment discrimination against the defendants. Thomas's charge was referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, although nowhere in the record is it clear what, if any, action the EEOC took on the complaint. Thomas sought and received a "right to sue" letter from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. This lawsuit followed.
Defendants answered Thomas's complaint on June 10, 1993, asserting denials of factual
In one sense, it would be unfair to the parties not to rule on the motion or to artfully dodge it because of the time crunch. Additionally, meritorious summary judgment motions advance important judicial resource concerns by eliminating trials when they are unnecessary. On the other hand, hurriedly addressing last minute summary judgment motions rob the court of the time necessary to carefully evaluate, analyze and cogitate ÔÇö sometimes necessary even when difficult issues are ... presented.
Holmes v. Marriott Corp., 831 F.Supp. 691, 696 (S.D.Iowa 1993). Neither party has requested a hearing, and in view of the imminent trial date, the court finds that the matter is fully submitted and is prepared to enter its disposition of the motion. The court has done the best it could to resolve the issues raised in defendants' motion for summary judgment given the crushing time constraints.
A. The Complaint
The complaint in this matter is not a model of artful pleading. The only numbered counts state causes of action under Iowa statutory or common law, but no federal cause of action upon which to base federal jurisdiction. The complaint begins with identification of the parties, a jurisdictional statement, and "substantive allegations," found in paragraphs 9 through 17, with a jury demand in paragraph 18, and a prayer for relief including injunctions, payment of medical bills, emotional damages, attorney fees, punitive damages, liquidated damages, front and back pay, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. The "substantive allegations" suggest claims of constructive discharge and disparate treatment on the basis of race.
In the numbered counts of the complaint, Thomas asserts four causes of action under state law. First, Count I alleges discrimination, apparently on the basis of race, in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 601A (1991) (now Iowa Code Ch. 216...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ruiz, No. 96-CR-227 S.
...statute. Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., 7 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.1993); Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413 (N.D.Iowa 1994) aff'd. 61 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.1995). The language of the statute and history of the section show it has no application to the ......
-
Stricker v. Cessford Const. Co., No. C 00-30220MWB.
...31, 34 (Iowa 1991); Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 639 (Iowa 1990); see also Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413, 1438-39 (N.D.Iowa 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 908, 1995 WL 416214 (8th Cir.1995). The claims are not separate and independent when, under the fact......
-
Baker v. John Morrell & Co., No. C01-4003-MWB.
...citations omitted) (citing Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 37 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir.1994), Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413, 1435 (N.D.Iowa 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.1995) (table) (No. 94-4081)), taken together, the addition of job duties, disparate re......
-
Delashmutt v. Wis-Pak Plastics, Inc., No. C 96-4057-MWB.
...omitted) (citing Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 37 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir.1994), and Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413, 1435 (S.D.Iowa 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 908, 1995 WL 416214 (8th Cir.1995) (table) (No. 94-4081)). In Kim, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ex......
-
U.S. v. Ruiz, No. 96-CR-227 S.
...statute. Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., 7 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.1993); Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413 (N.D.Iowa 1994) aff'd. 61 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.1995). The language of the statute and history of the section show it has no application to the ......
-
Kim v. Nash Finch Co., Nos. 95-2012
...action where plaintiff was reassigned without diminution in title, salary or benefits); see Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Systems, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413, 1435 (S.D.Iowa 1994) (holding employer's initial demands that employee take drug test, which was subsequently withdrawn, and accept anothe......
-
Stricker v. Cessford Const. Co., No. C 00-30220MWB.
...31, 34 (Iowa 1991); Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 639 (Iowa 1990); see also Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413, 1438-39 (N.D.Iowa 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 908, 1995 WL 416214 (8th Cir.1995). The claims are not separate and independent when, under the fact......
-
Baker v. John Morrell & Co., No. C01-4003-MWB.
...citations omitted) (citing Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 37 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir.1994), Thomas v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1413, 1435 (N.D.Iowa 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 908 (8th Cir.1995) (table) (No. 94-4081)), taken together, the addition of job duties, disparate re......