Wiseman v. Autozone, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO: 3:09-CV-00583-JD |
| Parties | NICOLETTE WISEMAN, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
On December 17, 2009, Nicolette Wiseman filed a complaint in this court against AutoZone, Inc., her former employer. [DE 1]. She brought four claims: Count I, sexual harassment and discrimination; Count II, retaliation; Count III, pregnancy discrimination, and Count IV, negligence. AutoZone answered on January 27, 2010, and amended its answer on March 26, 2010. [DE 6; DE 15]. On January 21, 2011, AutoZone moved for summary judgment on all four counts. [DE 21]. Wiseman responded, AutoZone replied, and the motion is ready for a ruling. [DE 24; DE 26]. For the reasons stated herein, summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Count I and Count II, but GRANTED with respect to Count III. Count IV is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916, 922 (7th Cir. 2001). A "material" fact is one identified by the substantive law as affecting the outcome of the suit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A "genuine issue" exists with respect to any such material fact, andsummary judgment is therefore inappropriate, when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Id. On the other hand, where a factual record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citing Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Servs. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, this court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as well as draw all reasonable and justifiable inferences her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; King v. Preferred Technical Grp., 166 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 1999). Still, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on the allegations or denials contained in its pleadings. It must present sufficient evidence to show the existence of each element of its case on which it will bear the burden at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986); Robin v. Espo Eng'g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, the non-moving party may rely only on admissible evidence. Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 2009).
The court has chosen to provide both "versions" of some contested facts in light of the special significance factual disputes acquire in the summary judgment context. The inclusion of a certain version of a disputed fact in this section does not, however, suggest that the court relied on that version in reaching its conclusions. When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court construes all facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Here, that means the Plaintiff, andall reasonable and justifiable inferences are drawn in her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Furthermore, the court considers only evidence which would be admissible at trial. Questions of admissibility have been raised with respect to some of the evidence presented in this section, but those question will be dealt with when the court discusses the issues. In short, this section is simply intended to provide a comprehensive background of the evidence presented to the court.
The Parties
Plaintiff Nicolette Wiseman was hired as a commercial driver at AutoZone, Inc.'s LaPorte, Indiana location in the summer of 2007. [DE 23-2 at 8]. Her duties in that capacity included answering the phone, taking commercial orders, and delivering parts to local automotive repair shops, but she also shared responsibility for more general tasks like store maintenance, unpacking parts trucks on Thursdays, and helping at the counter. [DE 23-1 at 2-3; DE 23-6]. Commercial specialist Randy Cunningham was her immediate supervisor. [DE 23-1 at 9; DE 23-3 at 2]. Store manager Lucas Gard supervised Randy Cunningham. [DE 23-1 at 9]. Gard reported to AutoZone, Inc.'s district manager, Gary Bailey. [DE 23-1 at 9, DE 23-4 ¶ 3]. Bailey was personally present at the LaPorte store every week or two on average, and Wiseman and he were acquainted. [DE 23-1 at 9-11; DE 23-4 ¶ 3].
AutoZone Company Policies
AutoZone presents selections from an AutoZone company handbook that contain, inter alia, an attendance policy, problem-solving procedure, and a statement of AutoZone's commitment to providing a workplace that is respectful and free of all harassment. [DE 23-5]. In particular, the handbook provides the following:
[DE 23-5 at 6]. The handbook also contains the following policy for "job abandonment":
If an AutoZoner fails to call in or report to work for 2 consecutive days, AutoZone assumes the AutoZoner has abandoned the job, and the AutoZoner's employment is automatically terminated.
[DE 23-5 at 3]. It is unclear whether the provisions in this handbook bore any functional weight when Wiseman was employed at the LaPorte store. While Wiseman remembers receiving a copy of the handbook at the outset of her employment [DE 23-1 at 6], store manager Gard testified that he did not recognize the handbook presented to the court, and stated in very certain terms that it was not in place during the time when both he and Wiseman worked at AutoZone. [DE 25-5 at 4 ()]. The handbook is copyrighted for 2004-2009, but bears no independent indication of the year it was produced, used, or distributed. [DE 23-5].
In any case, with respect to attendance policy at the LaPorte store, Gard did not follow any handbook at all. He preferred to use his own system. [DE 25-5 at 2]. Gard would accept any sort of doctor's note to justify an absence for medical reasons. [DE 25-5 at 2]. Ongoing medical restrictions, however, needed to be substantiated by an AutoZoner Physician's Report. [DE 25-5 at 2, 5]. There was no "points" system for attendance violations in place during Wiseman's tenure, and Gard recalled no rule, like the one in the handbook, concerning set numbers of absences that would trigger a written warning, a suspension, or a termination. [DE 25-5 at 3-4]. Gard's superiors - including district manager Gary Bailey - simply told him to use his discretion, as long as it wasexercised consistently. [DE 25-5 at 5]. Gard recalls instances where he accommodated medical restrictions for employees who submitted the proper paperwork. [DE 25-5 at 5].
Wiseman as an Employee
Wiseman was a mostly competent commercial delivery driver. [DE 25-12 at 2; DE 23-2 at 17]. Her immediate supervisor, Cunningham, characterizes her performance as "fine," although he received some complaints about her ability to look up parts. [DE 25-12 at 2]. Gard, the store manager, had no complaints whatsoever, and describes Wiseman as having a good work record. [DE 23-2 at 17; DE 25-8 at 2]. In early February 2008, after several months at AutoZone, Wiseman learned she was pregnant. [DE 23-1 at 24]. Wiseman provided a certificate of pregnancy to her employer shortly thereafter, but she noticed no change in coworkers' behavior toward her between the time she made AutoZone aware of her pregnancy and March 11, 2008, when the sexual harassment forming the primary basis for this lawsuit occurred. [DE 23-1 at 109-114; DE 25-4 at 7].
Sexual Harassment
On March 11, 2008, Wiseman drove three separate delivery trips to Jim Shaw's automotive repair shop, a regular commercial customer. [DE 23-1 at 20, 22, 25, 27]. On the first visit, Wiseman told Shaw's female secretarial employee, Pat, that she was hypoglycemic and had not eaten that day because she was short on money. [DE 23-1 at 22-23]. Pat knew Wiseman was pregnant and provided her with a snack. [DE 23-1 at 22-23]. Wiseman did not encounter Jim Shaw, the proprietor of the establishment, on her first visit, but she did when she went back midmorning. [DE 23-1 at 24]. Pat had informed Shaw of Wiseman's situation, and he handed Wiseman twenty dollars to buy food. [DE 23-1 at 65-66].
Wiseman returned to Shaw's for a third delivery later that afternoon. [DE 23-1 at 29]. This time, Shaw was waiting at the door when Wiseman arrived. [DE 23-1 at 30]. Pat was not present, and nobody else was in the shop. [DE 23-1 at 30-31]. Shaw shut and locked the main door behind Wiseman as she entered. He told her he wanted to "show her something," and led her through the shop into a small room, shutting that door behind them as well. [DE 23-1 at 31-32]. Wiseman had her hands full with a delivery acknowledgment and the part Shaw had ordered, and by this time she had grown uncomfortable and apprehensive. [DE 23-1 at 31-32]. Shaw approached Wiseman, lifted up her shirt from the bottom, moved her bra, and started kissing her breasts. [DE 23-1 at 33-37; 118]. Wiseman, distressed, pushed Shaw away and hurried out of his shop. [DE 23-1 at 36-37].
Wiseman returned to AutoZone and told her supervisors what had happened. [DE 23-1 at 37-39]....
To continue reading
Request your trial