Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc.

RACHEL CLAY, Plaintiff,

v.CREDIT BUREAU ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant.

No. C11-2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: May 31, 2012

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................2

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.............................2

III RELEVANT FACTS......................................3

A. Promotions Sought by Clay.............................3

1. Collection Trainer............................... 3

2. Legal Collector................................. 4

3. Front Line Supervisor............................ 4

4. PPA Supervisor and PPA Team Lead.................. 6

B. Clay's Disciplinary History at CBE........................ 7

1. Coachings....................................7

2. Verbal Wanting............................... 10

IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT............... 11

V. DISCUSSION......................................... 12

A. Are Clay's Claims Timely?............................ 12

B. Did CBE Discriminate Against Clay Based on Her Race?........ 18

1. Race Discrimination Based on Discipline............... 19

2. Race Discrimination Based on a Failure to Promote.......22

3. Race Discrimination Based on a Hostile Work

Environment................................. 26

C. Clay's Retaliation Claim.............................. 29

D. Clay's Constructive Discharge Claim...................... 31

VI. CONCLUSION........................................ 32

VII. ORDER............................................. 33

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (docket number 17) filed by Defendant Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. on March 16, 2012; the Resistance (docket number 21) filed by Plaintiff Rachel Clay on April 20, 2012; and the Reply (docket number 28) filed by Defendant on May 7, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.c, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be decided without oral argument.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rachel Clay ("Clay") timely filed charges of race discrimination in employment against Defendant Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. ("CBE") with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission ("ICRC"). The charges were also cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On July 23, 2008, the ICRC administratively closed Clay's complaint, finding no probable cause warranting further investigation of her claims of discrimination. On September 23, 2008, the EEOC adopted the findings of the ICRC, and also administratively closed Clay's complaint.

On March 1, 2011, Clay filed a Complaint and Jury Demand (docket number 2) alleging race discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I). On April 8,2011, CBE filed an Answer and Defenses (docket number 5), generally denying the material allegations contained in the complaint, and asserting certain affirmative defenses. On May 6, 2011, both parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Trial is scheduled before the undersigned on June 25, 2012. Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (docket number 17) on March 16, 2012.

III. RELEVANT FACTS

CBE is an Iowa corporation with its home office in Cedar Falls, Iowa. CBE engages in the business of debt collection for various industries and organizations nationwide. In March 2005, Clay began employment with CBE as a Front Line Collector. She also held positions as a PPA Collector and Quality Control Specialist. In February 2008, Clay resigned from employment with CBE for "personal reasons."¹ During her employment, Clay sought several promotions which she did not get. Clay was also disciplined on various occasions during her employment at CBE.

A. Promotions Sought by Clay

1. Collection Trainer

On January 16, 2006, Clay applied for the position of Collection Trainer. Seventeen people applied for the position. Clay was not selected for a second interview. Kelli Krueger, manager of training and recruiting, explained to Clay:

that the individuals that were selected to move to the next stage had more first line collection experience and were all currently in a leadership position (either a team lead or a manger) [sic]. The feedback I gave [Clay] for future interviews is to obtain more front line collection experience and strive to move into a leadership position starting with team lead. I also explained [to] her that if she is really interested in this position to be more clear on that during the initial interview. During this interview she did talk a lot about why she wanted 'out' of her current position but didn't talk about why this training position was what she really 'wanted' to do.

CBE's Appendix (docket number 17-4) at 116. Nate Sorenson was selected to fill the position of Collection Trainer. In answers to questions from the ICRC, CBE stated that Sorenson was selected for the position because he:

was working as a team lead in the portfolio that he would be training. As a team lead his duties included training and developing employees who were non-performers. This is askill that is extremely important for a trainer and he had proven ability to do this successfully. He had only been with CBE for seven (7) months but he was in a front line collector role since his start date and had shown a progression of growth during that period of time.

CBE's Appendix (docket number 17-4) at 106.

2. Legal Collector

On May 15, 2006, Clay applied for a position as a Legal Collector, or Post-Judgment Collector. Seven people applied for this position. CBE selected Connie Jensen to fill the position. In answers to questions from the ICRC, CBE explained that Jensen was selected for the position because of her "extensive front line collection experience, coupled with her extensive experience in skip tracing. [Jensen] has been employed with CBE since April, 2000. "²

3. Front Line Supervisor

On December 29, 2006, Clay applied for a position as a Front Line Supervisor. Twelve people applied for this position. On January 8, 2007, Clay interviewed for the position with Natalie Wissink and Kevin White. On January 11, 2007, Clay learned that she would not receive a second interview for the Front Line Supervisor position. Wissink and White offered feedback to Clay, and advised her that "there were other employees who had proven leadership qualities in a running a team" who received second interviews.³ Wissink and White also told Clay that they were "both confident that she does her job well and would recommend trying to get into a Team Lead role to demonstrate her leadership abilities."⁴ On January 23, 2007, Teresa Mendenhall, former Director of Operations, spoke with Clay regarding not receiving the Front Line Collector position:

I spoke to [Clay] about a claim that comments about race had something to do with the reason she wasn't chosen for the ED Front-line supervisor position. [Clay] denies ever making any statement like this, I asked [Clay] if she was given feedback from my managers as to why she did not receive a 2nd interview and she stated feedback was given and she was satisfied with their decision. During this conversation, I reinforced that [Clay] was informed by my managers that she needed to step into a Team Lead role for front-line and she needs to sign-up when we have the next team lead sign-ups, she agreed.

CBE's Appendix (docket number 17-4) at 92.⁵ Ultimately, no individual was hired for this position because Joe Potter, Vice President of Operations, decided not to fill the position.

Specifically, CBE determined that due to budgetary issues and supervisor-to-collector ratios, the position did not need to be filled.⁶

4. PPA Supervisor and PPA Team Lead

CBE has no record of Clay applying for either a PPA Supervisor position, or a PPA Team Lead position. According to her deposition testimony, Clay applied for these positions around the same time as she applied for the Front Line Supervisor position. In her deposition, Clay stated:

Q: A PPA team lead?

A: Yes.

Q: And you referenced a PPA supervisor?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you formally apply for that one?

A: Scott Swonger, I had a formal application in at the time for front line supervisor that Scott Swonger told me to apply for. He had told me he thought it was a really good position for me, apply for the front line supervisor position, you be the strongest candidate for this position and so on. Well, he told me to apply for that because in the department that I was working in, PPA I asked him, Scott, are there going to be any supervisor team lead positions coming open, you know, anytime soon, and he said, no, we just don't need it. There is not going to be, but apply for the front line supervisor position. So I put my application in for that. No sooner did I do that, the next week when I came to work there was a position, two positions, I think, like for either two PPA team leads and a PPA supervisor. I said, Scott, you told me to put this application in because there weren't going to be any openings in my own department. And he was like, don't worry about it. I will put your name on the list for the PPA supervisor and team lead positions. Don't worry about it. You will get an interview for those positions too. So I interviewed for the front line supervisor and teamlead, never hear back anything. They made a decision, and I never even got an interview.

Clay's Appendix at 9; Clay's Deposition at 47:1-48:8.

B. Clay's Disciplinary History at CBE

CBE has four levels of disciplinary action. The four levels are: (1) coaching, (2) verbal warning, (3) written warning, and (4) suspension. Between May 2005 and February 2007, Clay received six coachings and one verbal warning. During the last 12 months of Clay's employment, there are no records of Clay receiving any type of disciplinary action from CBE.⁷

1. Coachings

On May 27, 2005, Clay received a...