Zeigler v. J-m Mfg. Co. Inc
| Decision Date | 29 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10-CV-0014-CVE-FHM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Parties | PAMELA ZEIGLER, Plaintiff, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a JM EAGLE, Defendant. |
Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 26). Plaintiff Pamela Zeigler filed a complaint against defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., d/b/a JM Eagle (JM Eagle), 1 alleging a federal claim for relief based on violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as state law claims for relief for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. # 2. Defendant seeks summary judgment on all claims, and also seeks to limit plaintiff's recoverable damages.
Defendant, a manufacturer of polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene pipe, operates a production facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Dkt. # 26, at 5. The Tulsa facility is divided into two plants (pipe and fittings), and the fittings plant is further divided into two departments (moldings and secondary). Dkt. # 26, at 5. Plaintiff, an African-American woman, was hired by JM Eagle on April 16, 2006 as a full-time employee in the secondary department of the fittings plant.2 Id. She was assigned to the assembly table, where she cleaned, labeled, and assembled parts. Id. at 5-6.
Ziegler testified that she was told when hired that she would rotate among duties on the assembly line every thirty minutes. Dkt. ## 28, at 7, 11; 28-1, at 34. She says that this did not occur, and that other employees on the assembly table3, Kristina Sorrel, Sheena Smith and Laverne Smith, all of whom are Caucasian, 4 were rotated more frequently from the assembly table to work on other machines than she was. Id. at 10. Although Ziegler acknowledges that she was occasionally rotated from the assembly table, she says that it was not in the manner promised because she worked only on a single machine when needed. Id. She claims that she complained to Ray Shannon, her supervisor at JM Eagle, about not being rotated5 and that Shannon acknowledged that her lack of rotation was improper. However, Ziegler says that, despite her complaint, defendant's employees persisted in failing to rotate her.6 Dkt. # 28, at 11.
When plaintiff was required to rotate onto a machine, she alleges that she did so without proper training. She claims that she was denied training because of her race, and that Caucasian employees received training for the machines they operated. Dkt. # 28-1, at 36, 38-39. Her complaint alleges that Caucasian employees with less experience than plaintiff were selected to attend training courses, and that they received promotions as a result.7 Dkt. # 2, at 3-4. Plaintiff claims that she complained to Craig Kerr, the JM Eagle employee in charge of the plant, about not being trained for machines to which she was assigned, and that she told Kerr that she believed the lack of training was the result of prejudice. Id. at 36, 38. She further alleges that Kerr did not respond to her complaints.
Ziegler alleges that, as a result of her lack of training, she occasionally made mistakes when operating the machines, and that she was disciplined more harshly than her Caucasian co-workers when that occurred. As an example, she alleges in her complaint that "[o]n two occasions, [she] made mistakes while working on the machines because she was not trained on how to use them and she was disciplined." Dkt. # 2, at 3-4. Ziegler clarified at her deposition that the discipline referred to in the complaint was a verbal reprimand she received and the fact that she was required to return to her regular duties of stacking bags and loading pallets after making the mistake.8 Dkt. ## 28, at 10; 28-1, at 12. Ziegler states that, when her co-worker Sorrel made the same mistake, she was not disciplined but was allowed to correct her mistakes and continue the same job.9 Dkt. # 28, at 10. Plaintiff also cites as an instance of discipline that, when her co-worker Josh Giddel failed to appear for work for two weeks or to call in, he was allowed to retain his position upon his return. Id.
Apart from defendant's failure to train her, plaintiff also claims that she was subjected to racial prejudice in other ways while employed by defendant.10 Plaintiff testified that, on the day she first complained to Shannon about her lack of rotation, she and Battle made a complaint to Kerr about their Caucasian co-workers taking smoke breaks and leaving them alone on the floor.11 They told Kerr they felt there was a difference in treatment between the Caucasian and African-American employees. However, plaintiff says Kerr denied any prejudicial treatment and told her that he never wanted to hear the word "prejudice" again. Dkt. # 28-1, at 35. Plaintiff alleges that the perceived unequal treatment occurred again the next day, and that she complained again to Kerr; she says he responded that if she didn't like it, she could leave. Id. Ziegler also claims that she made complaints to Kerr on several other grounds. Ziegler testified that she was subjected to racially hostile language12 from Dale Dunn, another supervisor at JM Eagle, and that she complained about that treatment on multiple occasions.13 Dkt. ## 28, at 13; 28-1, at 35. Finally, plaintiff says she complained to Kerr about the fact that her co-workers Sorrell and Stephanie Carr left work early every day, leaving her alone on the assembly line. Dkt. # 28-1, at 37. She alleges that "[n]o blacks got to do that."14 Id.
Plaintiff alleges that she made at least two requests regarding a potential transfer to another department. The first occurred when defendant's facility was still in Shawnee. Ziegler claims that things weren't "going right in secondary," and that she was "seeing a lot of prejudice," so she asked Kerr to transfer her to a different department.15 Dkt. # 28-1, at 18. Plaintiff was not transferred as a result of that request; she does not know whether there were any positions open at the time. Id. She claims that she made another general request to Kerr for a transfer soon after JM Eagle transferred its operations to Tulsa. Id. at 19. However, she alleges that Kerr told her that she "got hired in secondary so that was where [she] was going to have to stay," and that she was not transferred. Id. Again, plaintiff has no knowledge of open positions at the time of her request. Id.
Plaintiff testified that a transfer to running a machine would have been a promotion and brought a corresponding rise in pay.16 Id. at 20. She alleges that Josh Goodel received training on a machine and was then moved to a supervisory position. Id. at 39. Plaintiff could not verify whether Goodel actually received a promotion or increase in pay, but alleges that he performed different tasks following his training.17 Id.
On October 13, 2006, Ziegler met with her primary care physician, James Russell, M.D., about pain in her hands and arms. Dkt. # 26, at 6. Dr. Russell released Ziegler to return to work without restrictions on October 16, 2006. Dkt. # 26-6. Plaintiff took to Kerr a note from Dr. Russell regarding her release, informing Kerr for the first time that she might have work-related pain. Dkt. # 26, at 6. Ziegler alleges that Kerr began "quizzing" her as to whether she hadn't injured her hands at home and making other inquiries about whether her condition was work-related.18 Dkt. # 28, at 14. On October 17, 2006, plaintiff went to see Dr. Russell a second time regarding continued pain in her hands. Dr. Russell released her with a note stating that she could not work until seeing an orthopedic specialist. Id. On October 18, 2006, plaintiff took the note from Dr. Russell to Kerr, informing him that her hand pain was work-related. Dkt. # 26, at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Kerr again questioned her about the source of her injury. Dkt. # 28, at 14. However, plaintiff was given the time away from work directed by Dr. Russell. Dkt. # 26, at 6.
On October 27, 2006, plaintiff was released by an orthopedic specialist to return to work with a six hour shift restriction. Dkt. # 26-8. Plaintiff gave a copy of the note with her work restriction to defendant's human resources manager, Judy Hamilton, and plaintiff was allowed to work in compliance with her new restriction. Dkt. # 26-3, at 9. On November 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that she had suffered a job-related injury to both her wrists and hands from repetitive activity.19 Dkt. ## 26, at 7; 26-9. On November 17, 2006, plaintiff saw her orthopedic specialist, who determined that plaintiff should not work until she had surgery on her hands. In accordance with the instructions of the specialist, defendant placed plaintiff on leave for her hand surgery. Id.
On June 4, 2008, plaintiff underwent surgery on both hands. Plaintiff's surgeon released her to return to work on June 6, 2008, with permanent restrictions against lifting more than ten pounds or engaging in repetitive, heavy gripping with either hand.20 Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff subsequently informed Hamilton of her release and permanent work restrictions. Id. at 8. On June 13, 2008, the plant manager, Darren Warn21, called and informed plaintiff that defendant did not have any positions meeting plaintiffs permanent restrictions to which she could return.22 Id.
Ziegler acknowledges that her permanent restrictions would have prevented her return to the assembly table position she held prior to her injury. Id. She is not aware of any specific position at JM Eagle that would have accommodated her restrictions. Id.; Dkt. # 28, at 9. However, she alleges that she could have worked in a "light duty" position, and that she had previously performed tasks for defendant that she would have been capable of performing with her disability. Dkt. # 28, at 9, 15. Moreover, she claims that other employees were placed in "light duty" positions when necessary to accommodate their disabilities.23 Dkt. # 28, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial