Wilson v. City of Des Moines
| Citation | 338 F.Supp.2d 1008 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:03-cv-40175.,4:03-cv-40175. |
| Parties | Mary Evelyn WILSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DES MOINES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Paige E. Fiedler, Beth A. Townsend, Fiedler & Townsend PLC, Johnston, IA, for Plaintiff.
Steven C. Lussier, Asst. City Attorney, Des Moines City Attorney, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 10) and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Clerk's No. 19). The summary judgment motion seeks dismissal of all counts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. The motion to strike seeks to have portions of Defendant's summary judgment motion stricken. An oral hearing on the motions was not requested and the Court finds none is necessary. Attorney for the Plaintiff is Beth A. Townsend; attorney for the Defendant is Steven C. Lussier, Assistant City Attorney. The Court considers the motion fully submitted and ready for ruling.1
Plaintiff, Mary Evelyn Wilson ("Wilson"), commenced this action against Defendant, City of Des Moines ("Des Moines" or "the City"), in this Court on March 28, 2003. Wilson's complaint asserts two counts against Defendant.2 Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question statute, as this case arises in part under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims brought for violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA") pursuant to the Court's pendant claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).3
The lawsuit arises out of alleged acts of discrimination based on gender, harassment, and retaliation, including the termination of Plaintiff's employment. On March 30, 2004, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendant seeks summary judgment on both counts and all claims asserted by Wilson in her complaint. Wilson opposes this motion. In addition, currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of Defendant's statement of facts.
This matter presents a lengthy and detailed history, all of which must be considered to appreciate the totality of the circumstances underlying the claims. Accordingly, the Court will provide a lengthy summary of the material facts.
A. Wilson's Employment with the City
Wilson began working for the City in 1995. In September 1998, she began working in the job classification of Laborer in the Street Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department of the City. Wilson transferred to the Sidewalk Division of the Public Works Department in August 1999. Notwithstanding this transfer, she maintained working within the job classification of Laborer in the Sidewalk Division.
On June 26, 2000, Wilson was certified by the Des Moines Civil Service Commission on a list of employees qualified for promotion to the job classification of Cement Finisher. This certification was based, in part, on the results of a qualifying test taken and passed by Wilson. The Civil Service list expired June 26, 2002, two years after certification.
During the two-year life of the Cement Finisher certified list, only one employee was selected from the list for permanent employment. This employee, Bryan O'Neill, was appointed effective July 3, 2000. The Cement Finisher position filled by O'Neill was in the Park and Recreation Department and was ultimately based on the recommendation of Donald Tripp, Director of the Park and Recreation Department.4
During the two-year life of the certified list, Wilson was temporarily promoted to the position of Cement Finisher in the Public Works Department on two occasions. She received this temporary promotion for three months in 2000 and for five months in 2001. Her five-month temporary promotion during 2001 ended in December 2001. Todd Lawless, another Laborer in the Sidewalk Division of the Public Works Department, was also temporarily promoted to the position of Cement Finisher in 2000 and 2001 for three months and five months, respectively.
In May 2002, Wilson succeeded in being placed in the Civil Service list for the promotional position of Sewer Maintenance Worker. She received a promotion to Sewer Maintenance Worker in the Sewer Maintenance Division effective June 10, 2002.
In early January 2001, Wilson complained to management about Roger Jaschke, her Section Chief in the Sidewalk Division. Wilson's handwritten complaint was given to Bruce Braun and identified four specific incidents of alleged discrimination. The four alleged incidents included the following: (1) On January 5, Jaschke would not give Wilson money from the City to buy a new shovel when Wilson's was locked in a different office, instead telling her to use a different shovel; (2) On January 5, Wilson took a snowblower that co-worker Todd Lawless had said he was going to use, and Jaschke called Wilson and her work partner back from the job site to exchange the snowblower she originally took (26 inches wide) for another one (22 inches wide); (3) On January 2 and 3, Jaschke gave Wilson an assignment to snowblow by herself near the 30th Street viaduct, which apparently was a large task not usually an assignment for one person; and (4) Wilson was reprimanded for using a vehicle for personal use.5 In addition, Wilson complained Jaschke was "impatient", "rude", "treating me exceptionally bad", "really short with me", and "wasn't treating me fairly".
Bruce Braun passed Wilson's complaint to Willie Robinson, Equal Employment Administrator for the City, who conducted an investigation and reached conclusions as to the veracity of the complaint. Following interviews with several of Wilson's co-workers and with Jaschke himself, Robinson concluded he could not substantiate that Jaschke was treating Wilson differently because of gender. He did conclude, however, that there were hard feelings between Wilson and Jaschke because of a rumor6 about Jaschke that Wilson allegedly brought into the workplace. Despite the existence of the hard feelings, Robinson could only find that Jaschke treated Wilson differently in the instance of the 30th Street viaduct assignment.
As a result of Robinson's findings, on or about February 14, 2001, William Stowe, the Public Works Director, issued a "written reminder"7 by way of a letter to Jaschke. The written reminder was instigated by the conclusion that Jaschke's actions of assigning Wilson to work the 30th Street viaduct alone and being short with her were inappropriate.8 On or about February 14, 2001, Wilson was also issued a written reminder from Stowe by way of a letter.9
Stowe also informed Wilson and Jaschke that a mediation session was being arranged for them, and that they were expected to attend and successfully complete the mediation. The mediation session was conducted by an independent mediator at an off-site location and covered the issues between Wilson and Jaschke. At the conclusion of the session, Wilson and Jaschke drew up a mediation agreement covering the issues discussed during the session.
In addition, in January 2001, Robinson provided training to the Public Works Department employees on the City's non-discrimination policies, no-harassment policy,10 and the internal complaint procedure for bringing complaints about the work environment to the attention of management. Wilson, Jaschke, and Keith McLey signed acknowledgments that they attended the training. A private mediator conducted another anti-harassment training session in late November 2001. Wilson, McLey, and Jaschke, along with the other employees in the Sidewalk Division, were required to attend the training.
In late September 2001, McLey complained to management about Wilson. In a meeting that included Jaschke, Braun, McLey, and Wilson, McLey complained that Wilson was not doing what he, as the lead person, had directed at the job site. After McLey finished speaking, Wilson responded by stating that the real reason McLey was complaining about her was that he had been touching her, begging her to go out with him, and making lewd comments, and that she would not have anything to do with him.11 As per instructions from management present, Wilson prepared a typed statement and handed it to Braun. Wilson stated that shortly after spring 2000, McLey would act like he was intentionally grabbing her breasts, put his hand on her leg, put his arm around her, and push his groin against her when she was bent over working. Braun reviewed the statement and forwarded it to Pat Kozitza, the Deputy Public Works Director.
Promptly after Wilson made her complaint, she and McLey were separated and were never again assigned to work on the same crew. Wilson did, however, see McLey constantly at work. Approximately two days later, Wilson met with Kozitza, Braun, and Robinson about her complaint against McLey. Management interviewed the co-workers Wilson mentioned as being able to substantiate her claims. Management also attempted to interview McLey, who refused to speak without union representation present.
A pre-disciplinary hearing was held for McLey. At the hearing, McLey denied participation in any sexual harassment but did make several allegations of workplace misconduct against various other employees including Wilson.12 Upon conclusion of the hearing and the investigation into Wilson's complaint, Stowe concluded that McLey had violated the City's sexual harassment policy. Stowe disciplined McLey with a "decision-making leave", a form of discipline that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
...Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011, 1019 (8th Cir. 2011) ). "Allegations based on mere speculation are insufficient." Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 338 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1025 (S.D. Iowa 2004).Kelley is an African American woman, and thus is a member of a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) ......
-
Ely v. Dolgencorp, LLC
...As this Court has previously held, the language of this rule limits it application to pleadings. See Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 338 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1023 n. 19 (S.D.Iowa 2004). Pleadings include complaints, answers to complaints, answers to counterclaims, answers to crossclaims, third-par......
-
McKinney v. G4S Gov't Solutions, Inc.
...to a demotion or termination.” (Pl.'s Opp. at 34.) He relies for support almost entirely on a single case, Wilson v. City of Des Moines , 338 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1018–22 (S.D.Iowa 2004), and the authority cited therein. The court is not persuaded by this argument.First of all, Wilson is not bin......
-
All Energy Corp. v. Energetix, LLC
...(S.D.Iowa 2006); Napreljac v. John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., 461 F.Supp.2d 981, 1044 n. 37 (S.D.Iowa 2006); Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 338 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1023 n. 19 (S.D.Iowa 2004); Milk Drivers, Dairy & Ice Cream Employees, Laundry & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Clerical & Allied Workers, Loca......