Wood v. Satcom Mktg., LLC

• Decision Date: 13 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–1712.,12–1712.
• Parties: Jenna K. WOOD, Plaintiff–Appellant v. SATCOM MARKETING, LLC; Kimberly M. Roden, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

705 F.3d 823

Jenna K. WOOD, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.SATCOM MARKETING, LLC; Kimberly M. Roden, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 12–1712.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 18, 2012.

Filed: Feb. 13, 2013.

Craig Trepanier, argued, Michael L. McCain, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Jessica E. Schwie, argued, Vicki A. Hruby, on the brief, Lake Elmo, MN, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Jenna Wood sued her former employer SatCom Marketing, LLC (“SatCom”) alleging violations of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minnesota Human Rights Act, common law of wrongful termination, and Fair Labor Standards Act. Finding Wood had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under each statute and the common law, the district court ¹ granted summary judgment in favor of SatCom. We affirm.

I

SatCom hired Wood as a part-time Verifier in 2008. It promoted her to Human Resources Clerk in 2008 and then to Human Resources Assistant in 2009. Throughout the period relevant to this case, SatCom's Human Resources Department consisted only of Wood and her supervisor Sam Riemensnider. As Human Resources Assistant, Wood performed ordinary administrative and personnel-oriented tasks, in addition to conducting occasional, basic legal research for SatCom (whose legal work was predominantly handled by outside counsel). Wood, who had received some training as a paralegal but did not complete the certification, had previously researched issues for SatCom relating to the FMLA, retaliation claims, employee monitoring, compensation for unauthorized breaks, and termination for insubordination.

In November 2009, SatCom's primary client announced its intention to conduct a compliance review of all vendors. Because SatCom relied heavily on this client's business, SatCom hired Kimberly Roden as Vice President of Operations to oversee preparations for the review. During the same time period, SatCom sought self-regulated organization certification, which it describes as the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for telemarketing companies.” Both processes depended in part upon SatCom's satisfactory maintenance of personnel documents, for which Wood was responsible. When asked in December 2009, Wood told SatCom's management that the files were in order. SatCom discovered later that Wood's statement was inaccurate; the personnel documents were, in fact, unorganized and out of date. As a result, SatCom's management decided to manage the Human Resources Department more closely. It imposed daily filing mandates on Wood and initiated a search for her supervisor Riemensnider's replacement.

On March 1, 2010, Roden held a meeting to discuss SatCom's new direct deposit policy. At the meeting, Wood raised concerns that requiring direct deposit as a condition of employment might be illegal. Roden stated that she would look into the matter and referred it to SatCom's legal team. That night, Wood conducted independent research on the issue at home.

On March 2, 2010, Roden advised Wood that some clients and representatives would be visiting SatCom the following week and Wood should, therefore, devote time to cleaning her office and ensuring the files were attended to. Later that day, Roden discovered Wood printing a copy of the Employer's Guide (which she had requested from the Employers Association during her private investigation of the direct deposit policy the night before) on one of SatCom's printers. Roden confronted Wood regarding her “wasting ... company time and resources” and asked her, “Can you let this go? This is already handled.” Roden then met with Riemensnider to discuss Wood's pursuit of unassigned legal work at the expense of her job duties. Roden informed Riemensnider that Wood would be required to submit an hourly work summary each day to “make sure that she was doing the work that was assigned” and to “get[ ] caught up on [ ] projects—especially, employee files.”

On March 3, 2010, Wood was directed to prepare certain personnel data for new hires. She failed to do so. In an email to Riemensnider, Roden identified this as the second example of Wood “not performing her job.” By the following day, Wood still had not completed the data entry, and the portion she had completed contained errors. Ultimately, SatCom had to enlist Heidi Schlict, an employee from another department, to finish Wood's assignment. Wood and Schlict later exchanged words in SatCom's lobby regarding the data entry. Wood maintains the exchange was not an argument but rather a discussion. Nevertheless, Roden interrupted the exchange and reprimanded both parties for carrying out their discussion inappropriately in a public setting. Schlict apologized for the exchange. Wood did not apologize and was written up for the incident.

Also on March 4, 2010, Wood brought up the direct deposit policy again—this time to Paul Mattson, a mid-level supervisor at SatCom. Mattson relayed Wood's concerns to SatCom's President, Dale Wunderlich, who stated he had already checked with legal counsel about the matter and determined the policy was lawful.

On March 5, 2010, Wood did not submit her required work summary. She also arrived at work late that day. SatCom found during discovery that Wood was late because she had spent the morning interviewing attorneys. That afternoon, Riemensnider and Roden placed Wood on a one-week unpaid suspension for failure to complete assigned tasks, use of company time and resources on unauthorized projects, and defiance of a lawful directive from management. In an emailed response, Wood stated in part, “The HR assistant job description ... was outdated to my actual work and capabilities. My intellectual capabilities, supersided [sic] the monotny [sic] of paperwork the position entailed, but I still performed it very well, up until the starting week of 03/01.”

SatCom offered Wood the choice of returning to work provisionally on March 15 or accepting a severance package in exchange for her resignation. Wood chose to return to work. In an email to SatCom, she stated that the pay offered in the severance package was too low, noting, “In an era with lawsuits, an adequate and reasonable severance package to an employee has benefited and possible [sic] saved the existence of many business [sic].” Wood also warned Riemensnider that her suspension was “a risky violation of FLSA” and that the “legal damages would cost more than suspending [her] for a whole year.”

On March 15, 2010, Wood returned to work at SatCom and was placed on an action plan which outlined the terms of a thirty-day probationary period. Under the new plan, Wood reported directly to Roden rather than Riemensnider and was required to submit a daily work plan and end-of-day summary to Roden, comply with management directives in a professional manner, present all correspondence to Roden prior to sending, and direct any complaints to Roden or, if the complaint involved Roden, to Wunderlich or Brenda Kroska. Failure to abide by these terms during the probationary period would result in Wood's immediate termination. Roden directed Wood to bring an executed copy of the action plan to work the next day.

On March 16, 2010, Wood arrived at work without the executed copy of the plan, so Roden sent her home to retrieve it. Roden also informed Wood that because the filing was behind, it would be her only job until further notice and that she was not to speak with co-workers in the meantime. Roden also prohibited Wood from using her personal cell phone at work, disabled her access to the company email system, and denied her access to the keys for personnel files. Wood further avers she was prohibited from drinking tea at her desk, that her work phone and work computer were removed from her desk, that she was required to walk with an escort at work, and that Roden escorted her to the restroom. The afternoon of March 16, Wood ran into a supervisor while exiting the lobby. Wood, who was carrying a plant, remarked that she was removing her plant from the “hostile environment.” The supervisor reported the incident to Roden.

On March 19, 2010, Wood arrived early for her shift and delivered a letter to Riemensnider detailing all of SatCom's activities Wood considered to be illegal. The letter alleged that SatCom was violating the law through its direct deposit policy, workplace practices that Wood believed disparately impacted racial minorities, its handling of non-exempt employee time records, and its deduction of sales commissions for missed work. The letter further stated that Wood did “not want to break the law” and expressed her desire “not be treated adversely, and put into a situation of enforcing the ‘direct deposit’ policy or any other illegal policy at SatCom.” Riemensnider warned Wood that her complaining to him rather than to Roden constituted a violation of her action plan. Wood acknowledged that she could be terminated for her actions. Riemensnider forwarded Wood's letter to Roden, who called a meeting within an hour.

At the meeting, Roden handed Wood a letter asking her to circle “yes” or “no” if she had told a supervisor, “I don't want my plant to be in a hostile environment.” Wood wrote that she hadn't made that specific statement but did believe SatCom to be a hostile working environment. Roden then handed Wood a second letter which asked her to circle “yes” or “no” if she had delivered a complaint to Riemensnider that morning. Wood circled “yes.” Roden then terminated Wood for violating the action plan. Wood replied, “I was hoping you would terminate me.”

Wood filed suit against SatCom and Roden on March 1, 2011, in the District of Minnesota, alleging she had been subjected to unlawful retaliation in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”), Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), common law of wrongful termination, and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). On February 22, 2012, the district court...