Williams v. United States Steel Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 2:10 cv 425 |
| Parties | LAKISSA D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 18] filed by the defendant, United States Steel Corporation, on February 29, 2012. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
In 2005, the plaintiff, Lakissa Williams, was hired by the defendant, U.S. Steel, at its Gary, Indiana steel manufacturing facility (Gary Works) as a Labor Grade 1 in the Tin Products Division. She was promoted to Labor Grade 2, Utility Technician, on February 6, 2007, and held this position at all times relevant to her complaint. Williams is a member of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC. U.S. Steel and the Union negotiated a Basic Labor Agreement (BLA) which governed the terms of employment for labor employees at Gary Works. The BLA gave U.S. Steel the exclusive right tomanage the business and direct the working forces, grievances and arbitration, suspensions and discharges, and wages and incentives. Under the BLA, an employee who temporarily was assigned at the request or direction of the company to another job was to receive the established rate of pay for the job performed and to receive special allowances as may be required to equal the earnings that otherwise would have been realized by the employee.
As explained in the BLA, Utility Technicians are responsible for operating equipment and performing tasks that support operations of the various production units and for working with materials and equipment to handle, transport, and process product and materials. Utility Technicians in the Tin Coating Department perform various production line functions (Solution Tender, Feeder, Shearman, and Piler) and non-line functions (Stocker and Ram Tractor). Utility Technicians receive the same base rate of pay regardless of whether they perform line or non-line functions, but incentives vary depending upon production and whether the Utility Technician works a line or non-line job. Utility Technicians working on the line generally earn more incentive pay than Utility Technicians performing non-line functions.
Between January and June 2009, Williams primarily was as-signed to the line as a Shearman. In February 2009, Williams began experiencing difficulty with her asthma and requestedintermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Williams' certifying physician estimated that she would require one to two days of leave per month, however, Williams missed five shifts in April, three shifts in May, and five shifts in June. When Williams was unable to report for work, U.S. Steel had to pay another employee to work overtime or the production would shut down. According to U.S. Steel, this increased its production costs.
Beginning in July 2009, U.S. Steel assigned Williams to the non-line Stocker and Tractor Driver functions. U.S. Steel states that it removed Williams from the line position to minimize over-time costs because of Williams' frequent FMLA leave. The Stocker and Tractor Driver functions fall within the job description for Utility Technician. Williams received the same base pay and non-line incentives as male employees working non-line positions.
The union filed a grievance challenging Williams' removal from the line. U.S. Steel denied the grievance, stating that Williams was placed in the less critical function of tractor operator due to her consistent absences from work related to her FMLA leave, which increased U.S. Steel's overtime costs. The BLA provided for additional levels of review, but the union chose not to pursue Williams' grievance any further. U.S. Steel reassigned Williams to the line by January or February 2010 and reinstatedher line incentives. At her deposition, Williams admitted that U.S. Steel moved her from the Shearman position based solely on her FMLA absences.
Williams filed a charge against U.S. Steel with the EEOC, claiming she was subject to gender discrimination and harassment. The EEOC chose not to pursue Williams' complaint and issued a Notice of Rights on July 26, 2010. Williams filed her complaint with this court on October 26, 2010, alleging gender discrimination, harassment, and various state law claims, including negligent supervision and retention and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Williams' EEOC charge centered around her removal from the line position and subsequent reduction in incentive pay. At her deposition, Williams testified that she was subject to gender harassment because she was sent home from work, assigned meaningless tasks, and denied access to a shanty to warm up on cold days. Specifically, Williams complains that she was scheduled to work as an Exit Driver on August 5, 2009, and upon arrival, was asked to work on the line in the Shearman position. Williams had taken cold medication earlier that day and was sent to the plant medical facility for evaluation regarding her fitness to perform the requirements of the Shearman position. The plant medical facility concluded that she could return to work in the capacityshe originally was scheduled but could not perform the Shearman position. Instead of allowing her to work her assigned position, U.S. Steel management sent Williams home. She was not allowed to return until she received a medical release, and she missed work between August 5, 2009 and August 11, 2009.
Williams also complained that her foreman, Derek Cheesebo-rough, began harassing her through a discipline issued in May 2009. On May 17, 2009, Cheeseborough disciplined Williams for failing to report off. Under its progressive discipline principles, U.S. Steel issued two five day suspensions to Williams for improperly reporting off and being absent without cause. U.S. Steel subsequently removed the suspensions during the grievance procedure, and Williams did not serve the suspensions. Williams also referenced a notice that Cheeseborough posted for the crews which stated Williams believed the notice was directed at her.
Williams also identified co-workers who missed work and were not removed from their line positions. Williams first pointed to Jack Overturf, who worked on the line as a Solution Tender and eventually was given a special assignment to accommodate his FMLA absences. Overturf's special assignment included assistinglesser experienced Solution Tenders with functions they were not capable of performing, such as monitoring tank levels, starting and stopping pumps, and opening/closing valves. Overturf received line incentive pay during his special assignment. U.S. Steel represents that Overturf received the line incentive pay because the work supported the Solution Tender functions, which was line work.
Williams also identified Roy Frost, another U.S. Steel employee who had been threatened with removal from his line position due to excessive FMLA leave. Williams states that she was personally aware that Frost had used more FMLA leave than she had. Frost also worked as a Shearman, but U.S. Steel contends that Frost's attendance dramatically improved as a result of discipline issued against him on March 3, 2010, and for this reason, U.S. Steel did not remove him from the line.
Williams also pointed to instances where U.S. Steel management corrected the pay given to male employees who complained they were incorrectly paid. Williams testified that Doug Lillie worked the Tractor due to a scheduling need and initially was paid the non-line incentive. An unknown manager allegedly paid Lillie the line incentive after he complained. Another employee, whom Williams knew only as "Big D", was a Solution Tender but sometimes worked the Tractor due to scheduling issues and re-ceived the line incentive. Williams also pointed to Kevin Oliver, who complained when Williams, who had less seniority, was assigned to a line position over him. Oliver was allowed to work the non-line position but received line incentive. At her deposition, Williams admitted Oliver was paid correctly under the BLA because the error was due to a scheduling problem. Williams also referenced Walker Steel and Harold Frank, who had their pay corrected by management, although Williams did not know the basis of the errors. Finally, Williams identified Jonathan Haywood, who was moved from a Labor Grade 4 Operator position to a Shearman position and still received the Labor Grade 4 wage. Haywood's removal from the Operator to the Shearman position was prompted by a discipline he received in June 2009. U.S. Steel has explained that Haywood had quality issues shortly after becoming an Operator, which resulted in a five-day suspension. U.S. Steel and the Union agreed to move Haywood to the Shearman position as an alternative to discipline so he could train longer with other Operators.
U.S. Steel now moves for summary judgment on all of Williams' claims.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper only if it is demonstrated that "there is nogenuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 964 (7th Cir. 2012); Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir. 2009). The burden is upon the moving party to establish that no material facts are in genuine dispute, and any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144, 160, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1610, 26 L.Ed.2d 142, 155 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial