Van Arkel v. Warren County
| Decision Date | 12 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:03-CV-40490.,4:03-CV-40490. |
| Citation | 365 F.Supp.2d 979 |
| Parties | James L. VAN ARKEL, Plaintiff, v. WARREN COUNTY; Warren County Board of Supervisors; Warren County Auditor; and Traci VanderLinden, in her Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Charles E. Gribble, Joann Stone, Parrish Kruidenier Moss Dunn Montgomery Boles & Gribble, LLP, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
Bridget R. Penick, Helen C. Adams, Dickinson Mackaman Tyler & Hagen PC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 31) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 30, 33). Attorney for Plaintiff is Charles Gribble; attorneys for Defendant are Helen C. Adams and Bridget R. Penick. The Court heard oral arguments on the motions on March 10, 2005, and now considers the motion fully submitted and ready for final disposition.
The present litigation might factually be regarded as a routine case of alleged discrimination in employment. However, the circumstances of employment by a government body, the creative arguments asserted on behalf of the Plaintiff, and core disputes about the appropriate legal process to be followed, require the Court to enlarge the analytical process in this case.
Plaintiff, James L. Van Arkel ("Van Arkel"), commenced this action against Warren County ("the County"), Warren County Board of Supervisors ("the Board"), Warren County Auditor ("the Auditor"), and Traci VanderLinden ("VanderLinden")1 (collectively, "the Defendants") in this Court on September 2, 2003. Van Arkel's Complaint asserts six counts against Defendants. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question statute, as this case arises in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 623, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.2 The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to the Court's pendant claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).3
The lawsuit arises out of alleged age and gender discrimination based in the termination of Plaintiff's employment with Warren County, Iowa. Plaintiff also alleges a breach of contract and violation of Iowa statutes as a result of his termination. On December 14, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56; meanwhile, on December 15, 2004, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, also pursuant to Rule 56. Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims asserted by Van Arkel in his Complaint, while Plaintiff just seeks summary judgment on the final two counts of his Complaint, i.e., the breach of contract claim and the claim made under Iowa Code Chapter 331. Both parties have had more than sufficient time to respond to the pending motions.4
Van Arkel was hired by Warren County in September 1991. He was originally hired by then-Warren County Auditor Beverly Dickerson ("Dickerson") to serve as Budget Director in the Auditor's office. Van Arkel signed an agreement provided by Dickerson, which contained the following language relevant to this action:
1. The Employee shall be appointed by the Auditor and approved by the Warren County Board of Supervisors pursuant to Chapter 331, Code of Iowa, 1991. Except as other wise [sic] provided by State law, removal from this position shall be subject to the specific provisions of the Warren County Personnel Policy.
* * * * * *
THIS AGREEMENT, may be terminated by serving written notice upon the other party by May 1, of the year in which this Agreement expires. Such termination shall be effective July 1, of that year. Unless terminated by the time and manner setforth [sic] above or in item # 2, this Agreement shall be deemed in effect from July 1, of the year notice could have been served, through June 30, of the following year.
Thereafter, the Board approved Van Arkel by resolution as County Budget Director as recommended by Dickerson. That Resolution, numbered 91-214, was adopted September 3, 1991, and provided as follows:
Be it resolved that, upon the recommendation of Beverly Dickerson, Warren County Auditor, James Van Arkel will be hired as a CPA effective September 1, 1991 at a bi-weekly salary of $1368.
Van Arkel then began working as a member of Dickerson's staff, which in 1991 consisted of seven women and Van Arkel.
In December 1996, the Board passed Resolution 96-495, consolidating the position of County Budget Director with the Assistant to the Board of Supervisors.5 Van Arkel was appointed to the consolidated position and thereafter assumed the duties of the Assistant to the Board of Supervisors in addition to his regular duties as Budget Director. Following the six-month trial period, Van Arkel remained in the consolidated position throughout the course of his employment with the County. According to Van Arkel's own estimation, approximately 80 percent of his time was devoted to the assistant's position and 20 percent to the budget director position, though he remained an employee of the Auditor's office, as his salary came out of the budget for that office. Traci VanderLinden6 became County Auditor in 1998.
The parties' accounts of Van Arkel's remaining tenure with the County differ. Van Arkel points out that he was presented with the Employee of the Year Award in February 1998,7 and that during the final years of his employment he received ratings exceeding "Competent Performance", and in fact was rated "Very Good" or "Outstanding" in most categories by Defendants during his yearly performance evaluations.8 In 2001, Van Arkel received the highest ratings of all County employees evaluated by the Board. In addition, neither VanderLinden nor the Board ever issued Van Arkel a written reprimand nor was he ever suspended during the course of his employment.
Despite this seemingly strong record, Van Arkel's employment was marred by issues that eventually led to his termination. VanderLinden states she was repeatedly approached by various County department heads regarding Van Arkel. The department heads presented VanderLinden with complaints that Van Arkel was usurping the Board's power and unilaterally making changes to their departments' budgets without the knowledge of either VanderLinden or the Board. Additionally, VanderLinden was becoming increasingly frustrated with not knowing where Van Arkel was during any given day. Also, during meetings of the Board, certain Board members instructed Van Arkel to improve his communication with department heads and inform his supervisors of his daily whereabouts.9 Despite this guidance, VanderLinden was still approached by multiple department heads with complaints about Van Arkel. These complaints resulted in at least two meetings of department heads to discuss those issues.10
In March 2002, after receiving additional complaints, VanderLinden concluded that termination of Van Arkel's employment was appropriate. On April 15, 2002, VanderLinden informed Van Arkel of this decision. VanderLinden hand-delivered a letter to Van Arkel stating he was being terminated for "irreconcilable differences in management philosophies." The letter further provided the County would pay Van Arkel a two-week severance package along with any unused vacation, resulting in payment of his salary and benefits through the April 26, 2002, pay period. On April 23, 2002, the Board passed Resolution 02-215 "acknowledging" the termination of Van Arkel as County Budget Director.
While Van Arkel was initially paid two weeks severance and all unused vacation, the County later paid Van Arkel an additional $14,379, which constituted payment of his salary through June 30, 2002. The County claims this was done out of an abundance of caution after VanderLinden became aware of the agreement Van Arkel had entered into with Dickerson, as the agreement had an automatic renewal provision providing that any termination would be effective July 1 of the year notice was given provided notice was given before May 1.
According to the County, Van Arkel has not been replaced as Assistant to the Board, as a majority of the Board concluded the position was no longer necessary. With respect to the budget director position, VanderLinden performed the budget duties herself for six months. She then advertised for and filled a new position, Warren County Budget Assistant, to perform many of the duties previously done by Van Arkel as Budget Director. After interviewing four candidates, two women and two men, VanderLinden hired Jennifer Sease ("Sease"), then age 26, because VanderLinden determined she had the most relevant experience of all the finalists concerning budgets in the public sector.
On December 9, 2002, Van Arkel filed a charge of discrimination alleging age and gender discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"),11 and Van Arkel was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on June 10, 2003. This litigation ensued, wherein Plaintiff has asserted six causes of action against Defendants stemming from his termination from County employment.
Both Plaintiff and Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Van Arkel seeks summary judgment only on two counts of his Complaint, and only on the issue of liability on those two counts. Meanwhile, Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims asserted by Van Arkel against them. The parties' contentions will be discussed seriatim.
"[C]laims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co.
...approach. See Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736-37 (analyzing claims under McDonnell Douglas in the absence of direct evidence); Van Arkel, 365 F.Supp.2d at 1002 n. 31 ("This Court will apply the McDonnell Douglas standard to those cases ... that lack strong (direct) evidence of C. The McDonnell Do......
-
Horlick v. Capital Women's Care, LLC
...of termination clause. The result is that [plaintiff] does not have a Wage Law claim.Id. at 805.See also Van Arkel v. Warren County, 365 F.Supp.2d 979, 1013–14 (S.D.Iowa 2005) (granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's claim for salary in lieu of notice because the court found t......
-
Hinshaw v. Ligon Industries, L.L.C., C 07-3029-MWB.
...v. Rohlin, 343 F.Supp.2d 762 (N.D.Iowa 2004); Owen v. MBPXL Corp., 173 F.Supp.2d 905 (N.D.Iowa 2001); see Van Arkel v. Warren County, 365 F.Supp.2d 979, 986-87 (S.D.Iowa 2005) (stating legal standards under Iowa law for the formation of a contract). Before addressing those requirements agai......
-
Brondyke v. Bridgepoint Educ., Inc.
...‘manifestation of assent to terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or required by the offer.’ ” Van Arkel v. Warren Cnty., 365 F.Supp.2d 979, 987 (S.D.Iowa 2005) (quoting Heartland Express, Inc. v. Terry, 631 N.W.2d 260, 270 (Iowa 2001)). Brondyke continued to work for Bridge......