Weinsheimer v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 88-73-Civ-Orl-19.
| Decision Date | 23 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-73-Civ-Orl-19.,88-73-Civ-Orl-19. |
| Citation | 754 F. Supp. 1559 |
| Parties | Kimberly WEINSHEIMER, Plaintiff, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Robert T. Burger, Jeffrey A. Ville, Burger & Ville, Indian Harbour Beach, Fla., for plaintiff.
Peter W. Zinober, Edwin J. Turanchik, Zinober & Burr, Tampa, Fla., Adrienne Fechter, David J. Shapiro, El Segundo, Cal., for defendant.
Kimberly Weinsheimer brings this action against her employer, Rockwell International Corporation,1 alleging sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. She charges Rockwell International with maintaining a hostile and abusive work environment constituting sexual harassment based upon the alleged acts of some of its employees.
Plaintiff Kimberly Weinsheimer (Weinsheimer), a woman of twenty-nine years at the time of trial, began employment with the defendant Rockwell International Corporation (Rockwell) on May 14, 1979. Weinsheimer began work as a file technician and was later moved to a position as a Thermal Protection Inspector. It was this position which she held during the period in question in this suit. After the events at issue here she was subsequently assigned as a Configuration Management Specialist. Weinsheimer remains employed with Rockwell at the present time.
Weinsheimer worked at Rockwell's operations at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Brevard County, Florida. During the time involved in this suit Rockwell's KSC operations were conducting work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on the Space Shuttle orbiter. Weinsheimer's specific employment location, as well as that of the individuals whose conduct she complains of, was Building K6-1095, also known as the "back shop" or the "tile shop." This building, or a portion of it, was further called the SIP Bond Room. At this location employees of Rockwell would bond thermal insulation ("SIP") onto tiles destined to become the skin and heat protection for the space shuttle. Rockwell would then forward the tiles to Lockheed Corporation, which was NASA's prime contractor for the space shuttle. Lockheed would place the tiles on the orbiter.
As is understandable, and even expected, in work of this obvious import, quality was essential. In the back shop at Rockwell the actual manufacture of the bonded tiles was done by technicians or "techs." Their work was then inspected by inspectors or "QC's."2 The inspectors would verify that the operations were done to the correct specifications and quality and would "pass" the work or send it back to be redone, as appropriate. Weinsheimer was one of these inspectors whose task it was to evaluate the work of the technicians. In order to ensure work of high quality, the technicians and inspectors belonged to two separate "chains of command," each with their own supervisory channels. Inspectors thus had no supervisory authority, as such, over technicians, although they did have final say as to whether a technician's work would be accepted. Technicians and inspectors each reported to different superiors and their performance evaluations, discipline and other like matters were kept separate.
Weinsheimer worked as an inspector in the back shop during the period in issue, approximately November 1985 through June 1986. At trial she sought to establish that the environment in the back shop was one of sexual abuse and harassment directed at herself primarily, and to some extent towards other women. Weinsheimer presented testimony that one of the technicians in the back shop, Kenneth Stoner, repeatedly verbally harassed her by asking her "several times" a week beginning in November 1985 to "suck him" or "give him head."3 Other testimony also indicated that Stoner may have pointed to Weinsheimer's crotch and said "Give me some of that stuff," in November 1985 and on further occasions may have grabbed Weinsheimer at the crotch and breast.
Plaintiff's case also alleged other incidents of Stoner. Also in November 1985 he is said to have held a knife to Weinsheimer's throat in a break room. In late 1985 or early 1986 he was said to have shoved or pushed Weinsheimer into a filing cabinet. In early 1986 he is alleged to have threatened to "bang her head into the ground." Weinsheimer and others also testified that Stoner, as well as other technicians, frequently passed gas or belched in their presence.
Weinsheimer also presented claims of harassment by individuals other than Stoner. Another technician, Kenneth Edmondson, is alleged to have exposed his penis and placed it in Weinsheimer's hand while she was working and looking away, supposedly encouraged to do this act by a nearby Stoner. Weinsheimer did not see Edmondson's penis, but states she heard his zipper going back up. A supervisor of the technicians, Jack Browning, is claimed to have patted Weinsheimer on the rear and at this time, or another, requested an "ice-cube job."4
Testimony by defendant Rockwell and its employees differed from plaintiff's as to the events in the back shop. Rockwell conceded that the back shop during this period was an environment replete with sexual innuendo, joke telling and general vulgarity. Its witnesses said that the banter and vulgarity was engaged in by nearly all employees there, male and female alike. Testimony was also heard that Weinsheimer herself was a participant in the sexual innuendo and vulgar storytelling and expressions. Weinsheimer was characterized as one of the more frequent and willing participants in the crude atmosphere prevailing in the back shop.
Rockwell's witnesses further sought to present evidence of Weinsheimer as a problem employee of sorts. While acknowledging her technical competence, Weinsheimer was said to have had a history of tardiness and sleeping on the job. Rockwell's evidence further showed Weinsheimer to be a very volatile person whose on-the-job fights, with Stoner in particular, were known to be vicious. Other testimony indicated that Weinsheimer was having continuing problems with her boyfriend at this time and that she engaged in loud and abusive phone calls with him from the back shop. In Rockwell's contention it was Weinsheimer's argumentative nature and the perception that she "got away with" her lateness and sleeping which underlay much of her problems in the back shop.
Weinsheimer testified that she had discussions with her supervisors, and those of the technicians, at Rockwell about the problem environment in the back shop. The supervisors in turn testified that her conversations with them, if any, were not taken by them to be complaints and that they concerned general problems regarding the back shop and not specifically sexual harassment.
On July 1, 1986 Weinsheimer took medical leave from Rockwell as a result the events described. Medical leave was granted based upon a letter from Weinsheimer's psychologist, Dr. Richard O'Halloran, in which he indicated that he diagnosed Weinsheimer as suffering from "industrial trauma" due to the prevailing environment in the back shop. Some of her symptoms of industrial trauma included depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, as well as "distractability" and impaired concentration. Dr. O'Halloran recommended that Weinsheimer take time off from work. Weinsheimer returned from medical leave on November 24th.5 This was initially on a part time basis, although plaintiff has since resumed full-time duties. She remains at Rockwell and has alleged no further harassment since her return.
Meanwhile, during July and August of Weinsheimer's medical leave, Rockwell initiated an investigation which looked into the incidents claimed by Weinsheimer, as well as into problems that employees or management expressed about the plaintiff. A company investigator was brought from California and interviewed the employees and supervisors in the back shop, including Weinsheimer. As a result of the investigation Stoner was given a two-week suspension without pay for various company rules' violations. His infractions included: "threatening ... or interfering with fellow employees;" "making of ... profane or malicious statements concerning an employee," "interfering with plant discipline or efficiency." Weinsheimer, when she returned, was also met by Rockwell to inform her of their efforts with regard to the back shop problems and also to advise her that in the future infractions such as tardiness and sleeping would be dealt with more uniformly.
Weinsheimer filed her charge with the appropriate state agency, the Florida Commission on Human Relations, on December 3, 1986 regarding the alleged sexual discrimination in the back shop. On December 10, 1986 the Florida Commission referred the complaint to the Miami District Office of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).6 Subsequently, in late 1987 the EEOC issued a Right-to-Sue Letter to the plaintiff regarding her charges. The complaint in this action was filed on January 26, 1988.7
Weinsheimer pursues this case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which declares that "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1988). Title VII's prohibition of discrimination based upon sex is now clearly held to include claims of sexual harassment. The courts have distinguished two kinds of such harassment claims: quid pro quo sexual harassment and "hostile work environment." Weinsheimer's current action is brought only under the second of those theories, that of hostile work environment.8
The Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erps v. West Virginia Human Rights Com'n
...names, she subjected co-workers to offensive language, and her own behavior was erratic and angry); Weinsheimer [v. Rockwell International Corp.], [754 F.Supp. 1559,] 1564 (M.D. Fla.1990), aff'd, 949 F.2d 1162 (11th Cir.1991) (conduct was not unwelcome where plaintiff made sexual gestures, ......
-
Wilburn v. Fleet Financial Group, Inc.
...and without more cannot demonstrate the absence of disputed fact as to welcomeness.45 See generally Weinsheimer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 754 F.Supp. 1559, 1564, n. 12 (M.D.Fla.1990) ("The Court does not hold that this plaintiff's, or any plaintiff's, participation in actions of a sexual or ......
-
Dyke v. McCleave
...speech or dress is relevant in determining whether he or she found particular sexual advances welcome."); Weinsheimer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 754 F.Supp. 1559, 1564 (M.D.Fla.1990) ("[P]laintiff's willing and frequent involvement in the sexual innuendo prevalent in her work area indicate th......
-
Benhardt v. Board of County Com'Rs of Wyandotte
...and males and directed at both males and females"), aff'd, 985 F.2d 573, 1993 WL 22375 (9th Cir.1993); Weinsheimer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 754 F.Supp. 1559, 1565 (M.D.Fla.1990) (granting summary judgment for defendant because "[t]he evidence discloses the banter to be gender-neutral, parti......
-
How Sexual Harassment Law Failed Its Feminist Roots
...the effect that these actions have on women,71 but also that those effects are 67. See, e.g., Weinsheimer v. Rockwell Int’l. Corp., 754 F. Supp. 1559, 1561, 1564–65 (M.D. Fla. 1990) (casting doubt on whether the explicitly sexual conduct directed at the plaintiff, including a co- worker poi......
-
The central mistake of sex discrimination law: the disaggregation of sex from gender.
...in many of these antics and in fact instigated some of them." Id. at 486- 87. (407) See Weinsheimer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 754 F. Supp. 1559, 1564 (M.D. Fla. 1990) (finding that a female quality control inspector at a space shuttle tile manufacturing plant who engaged in "sexual innuendo"......
-
Plaintiff's Prior Acts
...order. Herron v. E. Indus., Inc ., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007). In Weinsheimer v. Rockwell International Corp. , 754 F. Supp. 1559 (M.D. Fla. 1990), aff’d , 949 F.2d 1162 (11th Cir. 1991), the court properly admitted evidence that Plaintiff joined in sexual banter and innuend......
-
Sexual Harassment
...harassment that is truly gender neutral does not violate the terms of the statute. See Weinsheimer v. Rockwell International Corp. , 754 F. Supp. 1559 (M.D. Fla. 1990). §1502.2 Employer Liability As noted above, in quid pro quo harassment cases supervisors are viewed as agents of the employ......