Withrow v. Lamb Weston, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-00913-HL |
| Parties | AMELIA WITHROW, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LAMB WESTON, INC., a foreign business corporation; ELOY GERRARDO, an individual; MICHAEL COOPER, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Amelia Withrow asserts this sex discrimination and unlawful employment practices action against her former employer Defendant Lamb Weston, Inc. (“Lamb Weston”), and two of its employees. This matter now comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court heard oral argument on February 25, 2022. ECF 44. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts, and all reasonable inferences, are recited in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party Plaintiff. Earl v. Nielsen Media Rsch., Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011).
In May 2015, Plaintiff began working for a processing plant company that was later acquired by Defendant Lamb Weston. Declaration of Michael Cooper (“Cooper Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF 26. In November 2016, Plaintiff was promoted to receiving lead. Id. ¶ 4. As receiving lead, Plaintiff monitored and operated large industrial processing equipment and supervised personnel, which included Defendant Eloy Gerardo (“Gerardo”). Declaration of Rebecca Cambreleng (“Cambreleng Decl.”) Ex. A at 15-16 ECF 39. Defendant Gerardo was already working in the receiving area as a receiving operator when Plaintiff was promoted to receiving lead. Declaration of Bruno J. Jagelski (“Jagelski Decl.”) Ex. 1, ECF 23.
From day one of Plaintiff becoming a receiving lead, Defendant Gerardo and Plaintiff had conflict with each other. Jagelski Decl. Ex. 2, Amelia Withrow Deposition (“Withrow Depo.”) 18:15-16, ECF 23. While Plaintiff was Defendant Gerardo's supervisor, Defendant Gerardo often failed to follow Plaintiff's instructions and would refuse to work. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. A, 4-5 at 73:20-22; Withrow Depo 123:19-21, 124:2-11; Declaration of Amelia Withrow (“Withrow Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF 40. Defendant Gerardo's failure to listen to Plaintiff's instructions often resulted in an unsafe working environment for Plaintiff. Withrow Decl. ¶ 9. Initially, Plaintiff attempted to deal with Defendant Gerardo's insubordination herself. Id. ¶ 4.
When Defendant Gerardo's behavior did not improve, however, Plaintiff sought assistance from her supervisors. Id. ¶ 5. In a staff meeting with supervisors in December 2017, Defendant Gerardo stated to the group that he would not follow Plaintiff's directions. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiff believed that Defendant Gerardo refused to listen to Plaintiff because Defendant Gerardo did not want to be supervised by a woman. Id. ¶ 3. In any event, following that meeting, Plaintiff's supervisors did not discipline Defendant Gerardo or create a plan of action to resolve the conflict between Plaintiff and Defendant Gerardo. Id. ¶ 7.
Additionally, according to Plaintiff, she experienced inappropriate attempted sexual contact from Defendant Gerardo. Id. ¶ 9; Jagleski Decl. Ex. 2 at 28:13-24. On two occasions, Defendant Gerardo allegedly attempted to kiss Plaintiff. Withrow Decl. ¶ 9. Other times, Gerardo apparently touched, or attempted to touch, Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff objected to Defendant Gerardo's unwanted advances on all occasions. Id. Plaintiff did not report any of Defendant Gerardo's inappropriate sexual contact while she was employed. Withrow Depo. 28:25-29:1-8.
In 2018, Plaintiff submitted a total of eight grievances to Lamb Weston's human resources (“HR”) department for assistance, which, according to Plaintiff, all went unanswered or uninvestigated. Withrow Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16, 19, 20. Defendant Michael Cooper, the HR manager, did not provide any written responses to Plaintiff's seven grievances between February 2018 and September 2018. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. B, 8 at 71:14-72:9.
Plaintiff filed her first grievance in February 2018, which detailed her frustrations with Defendant Gerardo's refusal to work or follow Plaintiff's instructions and the lack of response or assistance from any of her supervisors. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. B at 15-17. Defendant Cooper claims that he attempted to meet with Plaintiff to discuss the grievance, but Plaintiff apparently refused to meet with him. Declaration of Michael Cooper (“Cooper Decl.”) ¶ 12, ECF 26. Defendant Cooper did not make any written findings about this exchange, however, and Plaintiff states that she never received a response from the HR department regarding her February grievance. Withrow Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.
In July 2018, Plaintiff's supervisors changed, and she became supervised by Christopher Rowe. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff sought help from Mr. Rowe about Defendant Gerardo's insubordination, but Mr. Rowe did not assist Plaintiff. Id. Ultimately, Plaintiff turned to HR again and filed three more grievances in August 2018 about Defendant Gerardo's behavior and the lack of assistance from supervisors. Id. ¶ 16; Cambreleng Decl. Ex. B at 18-24.
In her August 11 grievance, she explained that Defendant Gerardo “has been disrespectful from day [one] and does as he pleases” and that Plaintiff “cannot get any [supervisors] to do anything about it because it's turned around on [her].” Cambreleng Decl. Ex. B at 18. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Cooper did not approach or attempt to speak with Plaintiff after she filed her August grievances. Withrow Decl. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff filed three more grievances in September 2018; two against Defendant Gerardo and one against Defendant Cooper. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. B at 25-28. In her grievance against Defendant Cooper, Plaintiff reported that she had never been contacted by HR about any of her earlier grievances, and she wanted her concerns “[t]o be taken seriously” and appropriately investigated. Id. at 25. In her September 9 grievance, Plaintiff reported that Defendant Gerardo refused to answer a question that Plaintiff asked and that Defendant Gerardo had “been allowed to question any type of authority that [Plaintiff has] as a lead.” Id. at 26.
Defendant Cooper attempted to speak with Plaintiff about the September grievances; however, when Defendant Cooper went to Plaintiff, she was ending a particularly emotional shift and was crying. Withrow Decl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff asked to speak with Defendant Cooper at another time, but Defendant Cooper never reached out to Plaintiff again. Id.
After Plaintiff filed her first seven grievances, Defendant Lamb Weston reprimanded Plaintiff. On September 13, Plaintiff was issued a written warning for using a “very negative and unprofessional tone on the radio” to her receiving operators. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. A at 11. As a result, Plaintiff attended a coaching session on September 18 to refine her “personal interactions as well as radio etiquette.” Id. at Ex B, 5 at 53:5-10.
On October 8, 2018, Plaintiff's conflict with Gerardo came to a tipping point. That morning, Plaintiff was working with Defendant Gerardo when she noticed that the potato line was plugged, so she shut off the flume, which is a device that delivers potatoes. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. F at 1. While Plaintiff was inspecting the line, someone turned the flume back on, which could have been a potentially dangerous situation for Plaintiff. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. A, 2 at 66:11-22. When Plaintiff went to see who turned on the flume, she encountered Defendant Gerardo and another employee, Osvaldo Gutierrez. Id. Plaintiff confronted Defendant Gerardo for turning the flume back on. Id. at 2-3, 66:23-67:3. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Gerardo quickly walked at Plaintif while telling her to “calm down” and “shut up” as Plaintiff attempted to walk away. Id. at 3 at 67:3-15.
It is disputed exactly what happened next, but it is undisputed that Plaintiff's hand made contact with Defendant Gerardo's chest. Withrow Depo. 67:16-17. According to Plaintiff, when she turned around to confront Defendant Gerardo, he “walked right in [her] hand.” Withrow Depo. 12:4-6. Plaintiff denies that she hit Gerardo, and she claims that she feared for her safety and felt threatened by Defendant Gerardo's behavior, so she put her hands up to stop him from getting any closer to her. Withrow Decl. ¶ 22.
Following this incident, Plaintiff filed her final grievance against Defendant Gerardo on October 8. Cambreleng Decl. Ex. B at 29. In that grievance, Plaintiff stated that she saw Defendant Gerardo turn the flume back on, that he “came at” Plaintiff, and he pretended that she hit him. Id. She further reported that she felt discriminated against by Defendant Gerardo, that he refuses to listen to her because she is a white woman, and he purposefully tries to sabotage Plaintiff. Id.
Subsequently Defendant Cooper investigated the incident between Plaintiff and Defendant Gerardo. Cambreleng Decl., Ex. B at 49. Defendant Cooper interviewed Plaintiff, Defendant Gerardo, and Mr. Gutierrez, who witnessed the incident. Id. In his investigation, Defendant Cooper learned that Mr. Gutierrez had turned on the flume, and he saw Plaintiff confront Defendant Gerardo and hit him in the chest. Id. at 50. Lamb Weston has a written policy against violence in the workplace in its Employee Handbook Rules of Conduct, which explains that “any form of physical contact that may result in harm to another person” is a most serious violation that could result in immediate discharge without warning. Cooper Decl. Ex. 16 at 2-3. Based on his investigation, Defendant Cooper believed that Plaintiff hit Defendant Gerardo and recommended that Plaintiff's employment be terminated. Cambreleng Decl., Ex. B at 49. On October 16, 2018, Def...
To continue reading
Request your trial