Van v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 22 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-8708 |
| Parties | CHRISTIE VAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for class certification [318], Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony, reports, and opinions of Dr. Louise Fitzgerald [352], and Plaintiffs' motion to bar the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Liza Gold, M.D. and Dr. Gregory Mitchell, PhD. [370]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification [318]. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony, reports, and opinions of Dr. Louise Fitzgerald [352], and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion to bar the testimony and expert report of Dr. Liza Gold and Dr. Gregory Mitchell, PhD. [370]. This case is set for further status hearing on September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
Plaintiffs are women who currently are employed or who were employed at one of the two Chicago-area Ford Motor Company facilities (the "Plants")—the Chicago Assembly Plant ("Assembly Plant") and the Chicago Stamping Plant ("Stamping Plant"). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all present and former female employees who worked at the Assembly Plant or the Stamping Plant between February 14, 2012 and present. The evidence before the Court—if credited at trial—indicates that named Plaintiffs and other putative class members have been subjected to a pervasively sexual, hostile, intimidating and abusive work environment at Defendant's Plants. Female employees at the Plants have been forced to work in an environment containing sexually explicit graffiti, carvings, and drawings. [323, at 33.] Pornographic images have been displayed in lockers and common areas of the Plants. [Id. at 30-33.] Supervisors and team leaders view pornography at their computers. [Id. at 31.] Pornographic and sexual images and videos are shown to women or are passed among male employees (both hourly and salaried) in the presence of women. [Id.] Male employees have taken pictures of their genitalia on their mobile phones and shown the pictures to female employees. [Id.] Male employees also have texted offensive, graphic and/or sexually explicit requests to female employees. [Id.]
In addition to these egregious allegations, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that certain Plaintiffs and putative class members have been subjected to unwelcome physical contact, including rape. Named Plaintiff Jeanette Gardener provided the following account of an interaction with superintendent Myron Alexander in an EEOC charge of discrimination:
He physically bent me down with my chest against a desk. He grabbed my neck with his other hand and firmly held me down. He pushed himself up against my backside. I felt like I was being sexually assaulted and that I was about to be raped. I cried, but Myron just whispered in my ear "try and say something else." I was scared and felt powerless.
[324-160 (Pls.'s Ex. 160), at 5.] Another named Plaintiff, Latricia Shanklin, testified that she was in the office of that same superintendent when he locked the door and began inappropriately touching her. [325-23 (Shanklin Dep. Tr.), at 32-33.] After Ms. Shanklin rejected Mr. Alexander's attempt to unzip her pants, he then grabbed her hand and forced it on his penis. [Id. at 33.] According to Ms. Shanklin, Mr. Alexander would not let her leave his office until Ms. Shanklin performed a sex act on him. [Id.] Ms. Shanklin also testified that she was raped byHuman Resources Manager Terrence McClain who allegedly forced himself on Ms. Shanklin after he got Ms. Shanklin's daughter her job back after she was terminated. [Id. at 41-44.] These are just a few examples of the many instances of misconduct alleged by named Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have identified numerous examples of putative class members who claim to have been subjected to similar conduct. For example, a putative class member who submitted a claim as part of the EEOC conciliation process (discussed below) indicated on her claim form that she was harassed and assaulted by numerous employees, including a manager. [407-15 (Def.'s Ex. 8).] The putative class member indicates that an area manager threatened her, hit her, choked her, and forced her into a sexual relationship. [Id. at 5.] She also indicates that she was inappropriately touched while on Defendant's premises at least weekly from 2015 to early 2017. [Id. at 6.] The putative class member goes on to allege additional harassment by numerous employees of Defendant.
As noted by Defendant, the allegations of misconduct are not limited to male employees. Plaintiff Christie Van accuses her then-supervisor and co-Plaintiff Cephani Miller of making inappropriate comments. Specifically, Ms. Van testified that Ms. Miller retaliated against her and asked Ms. Van whether she thought everyone was sexually harassing her because she's so sexy. [358-13 (Def.'s Ex. 54 - Van Dep. Tr.), at 146-47.] Ms. Van, in turn, was accused of engaging in misconduct by putative class member Shanetta Myles. Specifically, Ms. Myles indicated in an interview that Ms. Van commented on Ms. Myles's weight and body parts. [358-16 (Def.'s Ex. 106), at 12.] According to Ms. Myles, Ms. Van also stated "give me some of those [titties]." [Id.] Similarly, a putative class member Rosetta Smith submitted an affidavit indicating that Maria Price openly discussed her sexual preferences in the workplace. [358-11 (Def.'s Ex. 30 - Smith Decl.), at 101, ¶ 21.] Ms. Price also would greet male employees with a hug and oftenwould blow kisses at them. [Id. at 102, ¶ 22.] Ms. Price testified that Carmel Gregory "was interested in a romantic relationship" with Ms. Price and "would constantly call [Ms. Price] to the office upstairs and tell [her] how pretty [she] was and stop giving [Ms. Gregory] the [baby doll] eyes and just to get to know her." [358-13 (Def.'s Ex. 50 - Price Dep. Tr.), at 126.] Indeed, in Ms. Price's EEOC Charge, Ms. Price listed Ms. Gregory as one of her sexual harassers. [29-21, at 2.] Plaintiff Helen Allen-Amos accused Monique Johnson of acting inappropriately by "always grabbing on men, sitting on their laps," and squeezing their butts when she hugged the men. [358-13 (Def.'s Ex. 36), at 8.] Defendant's response brief outlines numerous other examples of allegations of misconduct against women working at the Plants.
Although the allegations of misconduct against Defendant are abundant, the putative class contains at least a dozen women who swear they "suffered no injury" because they never experienced sexually harassing conduct. [358-11 (Def.'s Exs. 9-20).] Yet another dozen women attest that they may have experienced an isolated instance of inappropriate conduct, but either were not bothered by the conduct; handled it themselves in a satisfactory manner (e.g., by telling the offender to stop); or found Defendant's response to the reported misconduct to be appropriate. [358-11 (Def.'s Exs. 21-32).]
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant was aware that women at the Plants were being subjected to pervasive sexual harassment and sex discrimination for at least two years before Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2014 but that Defendant failed sufficiently to remedy the issue. Plaintiffs identify a number of purported deficiencies with Defendant's response to known complaints of sexual harassment. Plaintiffs identify complaints that were made to Defendant but that were never documented in Defendant's records. [323, at 40-42.] Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant failed sufficiently to discipline those who were the subject of complaints. For example, Plaintiffsidentify one wrongdoer who twice bit women on the buttocks, but who was not punished for the first instance and was only given "coaching and counseling" for the second instance. [Id. at 35.] To take another example, Plaintiffs note that it took Defendant nearly a year to discipline an employee for making improper comments to numerous women in violation of Defendant's anti-harassment policies. [Id. at 43.] Plaintiffs outline additional examples of known harassers who Plaintiffs contend Defendant failed to discipline in a timely and/or appropriate manner. [Id. at 43-46.]
Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant's management and human resources departments discouraged complaints, including complaints to Defendant's harassment hotlines. For example, named Plaintiff Ms. Van testified that Human Resources supervisor Mr. McClain threatened Ms. Van for calling the hotline. [325-29 (Van Dep. Tr.), at 39.] By way of another example, union chairman Grant Morton testified that—on multiple occasions in or about 2012 and early 2013—he was told by labor relations representative Natalie Dahringer that women needed to drop complaints before accommodations would be approved to reassign a woman to a different job or department or shift. [325-46 (Morton Dep. Tr.), at 16-17.] Mr. Morton testified that this happened with complaints made by named Plaintiff Ms. Van. [Id.] Although Ms. Dahringer denies this, there is conflicting testimony on the issue.
Plaintiffs further contend that several women have been retaliated against by co-workers and supervisors for complaining about sexual harassment, as well as rejecting sexual advances of male supervisors. [323, 48-49.] For example, when named Plaintiff Maria Price complained about sexual harassment to Coby Millender, he told her to "bring [her] pretty lips" to his office to discuss her complaint and threatened that he would put her on a worse shift if she did not go. [325-22 (Price Dep. Tr.), at 13.]
This alleged misconduct occurred at Defendant's Chicago Assembly Plant and Stamping Plant, both of which are massive in size. The Assembly Plant has four standalone buildings totaling more than 2,813,260 square feet on 113 acres. [3...
To continue reading
Request your trial