Wright v. Waterloo Water Works

• Decision Date: 27 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-1730,90-1730
• Parties: Clara WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. WATERLOO WATER WORKS and the Water Works Board of Trustees, Reed Craft and Dick Main, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 889

493 N.W.2d 889

Clara WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. WATERLOO WATER WORKS and the Water Works Board of Trustees, Reed Craft and Dick Main, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 90-1730.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Oct. 27, 1992.

Thomas Mann, Jr., Austin, TX, for plaintiff-appellant.

Larry J. Cohrt of Swisher & Cohrt, Waterloo, for defendants-appellees.

Considered by OXBERGER, C.J., and DONIELSON and HABHAB, JJ.

HABHAB, Judge.

FACTS

On July 9, 1979, Clara Wright, a black woman, began employment with the Waterloo Water Works as a customer service clerk. The utility is municipally-owned and operated by a board of trustees. In January of 1987, Wright read an article in the Waterloo Courier listing the salaries of the clerical workers at the utility. According to the article, Wright was paid twenty cents less per hour than her coworkers. Wright met with Reed Craft, the general manager, and Richard Main, the office manager, regarding the discrepancy in pay. They told Wright her excessive absenteeism required she be paid somewhat less.

On March 4, 1987, Wright filed a formal complaint of racial discrimination with the Waterloo Human Rights Commission. Wright alleged her white coworkers were receiving higher pay even though they had less seniority and experience. When officials from the commission spoke with Craft, Craft stated that generally all the clerical jobs were considered equal.

Wright alleged that after filing her complaint, she was subjected to actions of harassment by her supervisors and coworkers. On April 6, 1987, Wright met with Craft and Main to determine why she was, in her belief, being treated badly. Craft maintained he did not socialize with Wright because he did not want to compromise the parties' respective positions before a hearing could be held on the complaint. Craft stated that otherwise he and the other associates in the office maintained a professional relationship with Wright. However, Wright argued the following actions in the workplace constituted harassment because of her race: her coworkers allegedly labeled her a racist; allegedly accused her of theft; ostracized her by not sharing popcorn with her; and embarrassed her by displaying her name on an in/out bulletin board when she was absent from work.

Wright believed the continuous stomach pains she experienced during this time were the result of the stress she was under at work. However, she had a history of ulcers and also had a lengthy history of alcoholism and personality disorders. She had been treated by numerous doctors for a variety of illnesses, including depression.

On June 7, 1988, Wright filed the present action alleging racial discrimination in employment in violation of Iowa Code section 601A.6 (1987) and 42 U.S.C. section 1981. On June 27, 1988, the City, Craft, and Main filed a combined motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss as to the claims against the City. Wright subsequently filed a motion for default judgment, claiming the defendants had not filed an answer within ten days of the court's ruling. The defendants filed a resistance and also a counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion for default judgment and also denied the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants subsequently served Wright with a request for production of documents and interrogatories. During the next year, Wright produced documents showing she had been treated by numerous doctors for a wide variety of ailments, including psychiatric problems. In September 1989, the defendants served Wright with several subpoenas duces tecum. The information requested revealed that Wright had been treated at a local mental health clinic within the previous year and had also been treated at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The defendants filed a motion for sanctions on the grounds Wright had failed to produce the requested documents during discovery. The trial court granted the motion, striking out Wright's claims for alleged pain and emotional distress.

At trial, it was revealed that Wright had the greatest absenteeism of any employee at the utility. During 1985, Wright only worked 1,167.8 hours of the possible 2,080 work hours. In addition, she left work early or was late to work for a total of 363 minutes. The clerical worker with the next highest rate of late time only accumulated 30 minutes of late time. Craft and Main testified they initially decided not to raise Wright's salary by twenty cents due to her excessive rate of absenteeism. The defendants also introduced numerous letters of diagnoses from a variety of doctors who had examined Wright since 1979. In sum, the doctors' letters revealed they all believed Wright suffered from a histrionic personality disorder and viewed herself as having no faults while everyone else had many faults. The letters also revealed the doctors believed Wright would be hard to work with. However, Wright maintained all her absences had been authorized. She also complained other associates had been trained on new procedures and she had been left out. The defendants testified Wright was absent during all of the training sessions.

On September 21, 1990, the trial court entered its judgment dismissing the case in

its entirety. On September 28, 1990, Wright filed a rule 179(b) motion, which was overruled by the trial court. Wright appealed and the defendants cross-appealed. We affirm.

ANALYSIS

I. Motion for Default Judgment.

Wright argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for default judgment. The defendants responded to the original filing of the petition by timely filing a motion to dismiss. Wright argues the defendants did not file an answer to the petition until August 29, 1988, over ten days after the trial court denied their motion to dismiss on August 5, 1988. She maintains that pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 85(c), the defendants had to file an answer within ten days.

During the hearing on the motions, the trial court advised counsel for both parties the court was inclined to grant the motion to dismiss as to the City of Waterloo because the pleadings did not contain allegations that Wright was employed by the City or that any of the alleged acts of discrimination could be attributed to employees of the City. Upon representations by Wright's counsel that she may amend her Petition to include sufficient facts to retain the City in the litigation, the court further indicated it would allow Wright to amend her Petition to include such allegations and thus would make the dismissal subject to Wright's right to amend. The court's ruling contained the following language: "Accordingly, the Court grants the City of Waterloo's Motion to Dismiss, and said party is dismissed from this lawsuit on the pleadings as they now stand, subject to Plaintiff's timely amendment." (emphasis added).

From the discussions at the hearing and the language in the court's ruling, counsel for the defendants believed Wright would immediately amend her pleadings. Therefore, rather than filing a separate answer, counsel chose to wait for Wright to amend the pleadings and would then file an answer on behalf of all the defendants. However, Wright's counsel filed a motion for default judgment rather than filing an amendment. After the motion for default judgment was filed, counsel for the defendants filed an answer and counterclaim.

Prior cases have not required a trial court, when refusing to grant a default, to find oversight, mistake, inadvertence, or other rule 236 conditions, to exist and cause defendant's failure to answer timely. Johnson v. Gib's Western Kitchen Inc., 338 N.W.2d 872 (Iowa 1983). Nor does the law impose the burden of proof for setting aside a default judgment, Iowa R.Civ.P. 236, onto the defendant seeking to avoid a default judgment under rule 230. Id. As the supreme court stated in Kohorst v. Iowa State Commerce Comm'n, 348 N.W.2d 619, 622 (Iowa 1984):

Despite the language of rules 230-32 that might be read to require the entry of a default under certain conditions, our cases interpreting those rules have not made such entry mandatory. We have consistently held that the question of allowing a default is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Avery v. Peterson, 243 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1976) (no trial error in denying default: answer of county board of supervisors and auditor, filed after plaintiff's motion for default, was substantially the same as the timely answer filed by other defendants); Severson v. Sueppel, 260 Iowa 1169, 1177, 152 N.W.2d 281, 286 (1967). The policy of the law is to allow trial of actions on the merits. Id.

The specific circumstances clearly demonstrate the defendants at all times intended to defend this action. We are unable to conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wright's motion for default judgment.

II. Harassment and Retaliation Claim.

Wright argues the trial court erred in finding no harassment had taken place and the utility had not retaliated against her for filing a complaint.

Where the case was tried as a law action to the trial court, our scope of review is for correction of errors at law and the findings of facts are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Theisen v. Miller, 427 N.W.2d 874, 875 (Iowa App.1988); Iowa R.App.P. 4, 14(f)(1). We construe the trial court's findings broadly and liberally. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Voeltz, 431 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Iowa 1988). In case of doubt or ambiguity we construe the findings to uphold, rather than defeat, the district court's judgment. Id. We are prohibited from weighing the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. Id.

A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if the finding may be reasonably inferred from the evidence. In evaluating sufficiency of the evidence, we view it in its light most favorable to sustaining the court's judgment. We need only consider...