Cooper v. Eaton Corp.

498 F.Supp.3d 1053

Monique L. COOPER, Plaintiff,

v.EATON CORPORATION, Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 1:19cv100

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

Signed October 30, 2020

Christopher C. Myers, Christopher C. Myers & Associates, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.

Dorothy D. McDermott, Drew C. Ambrose, Aaron J. Williamson, Jackson Lewis PC, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

William C. Lee, Judge

This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant, Eaton Corporation ("Eaton"), on May 18, 2020. Plaintiff, Monique L. Cooper ("Cooper"), filed her response on August 31, 2020, to which Eaton replied on September 21, 2020.

Also before the Court is a motion to strike plaintiff's affidavit, filed by Eaton on September 21, 2020. Cooper responded to the motion on October 1, 2020, to which Eaton replied on October 8, 2020.

For the following reasons, the motion to strike will be granted in part and denied in part, and the motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Standard of Review

A court must grant a motion for summary judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a). Material facts are those facts that are outcome-determinative under the applicable law. Smith v. Severn , 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). To survive summary judgment, the non-movant must muster specific, admissible evidence permitting a reasonable jury to find in her favor. Grant v. Trs. of Indiana Univ. , 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017). Although the non-movant receives the benefit of all facts and reasonable inferences, the non-movant cannot rely upon inferences supported by mere speculation or conjecture. Singer v. Raemisch , 593 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 2010). Self-serving generalizations lacking factual support in the record also cannot preclude the entry of summary judgment. Taylor v. ADS, Inc. , No. 00 C 7554, 2002 WL 1770894, *5, and n. 4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14308, *16-18, and n. 4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2002) (citing Albiero v. City of Kankakee , 246 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir. 2001) ; Slowiak v. Land O'Lakes, Inc. , 987 F.2d 1293, 1295 (7th Cir. 1993) ). What is more, neither legal argument alone, nor opinions not based on observation or first-hand experience, will withstand a motion of summary judgment. Taylor , 2002 WL 1770894, at *5 n. 4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14308, at *18 n. 4.

Discussion

Eaton is a power management company that provides energy-efficient solutions to help customers manage electrical, hydraulic and mechanical power efficiently, safely and sustainably. (Declaration of Rebecca Arterburn at ¶ 3.) Eaton has a facility location in Auburn, Indiana "(Auburn Plant") (Id. at ¶ 4.) At its Auburn Plant, Eaton manufactures clutch components for the global commercial vehicle industry. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Cooper is a current employee at Eaton's Auburn facility, working as an assembler in the Assembly Department. (Deposition of Monique Cooper, at 43:1-5.) Mr. Michael Jackson also worked in the Assembly Department for a period of time with Cooper. (Id. at 63:15-16; Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 7.) Jackson has never had supervisory authority over Cooper, as he is her peer. (Cooper Dep. at 63:8-14.) Arterburn directly supervised Cooper and Jackson during the relevant timeframe. (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 7.)

Eaton states that it maintains a Harassment-Free Workplace Policy that notifies employees Eaton will not tolerate any form of workplace harassment. (Cooper Dep. at 48:14-49:15); (Declaration of Emily Jahr, at ¶ 8, Defendant's Ex. A.) Eaton further states that it takes prompt remedial action designed to stop the harassment. (Jahr Decl. at ¶ 8, Def. Ex. A.) Depending upon the individual circumstances, appropriate action could include, among other actions, reassignment, transfer, reprimand, suspension or other disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Id. Eaton's policy also explains that retaliation is not tolerated and those who participate or bring complaints concerning harassment will be protected from retaliation. Eaton believes Cooper was aware of this policy. Id.

In addition, Eaton maintains workplace rules governing how employees are expected to behave. (Jahr Decl, at ¶ 9, Def. Ex. B.) One of the Auburn Plant rules delineates Eaton's core value of respect. (Id. ) Specifically, it is a violation of the Auburn Plant rules to engage in "disrespectful, disruptive, or inappropriate language or behavior towards peers...." If an employee violates Eaton's rules, progressive discipline will be issued generally as follows:

Step One (1) – Verbal Warning – Remains on employee's record for one (1) year

Step Two (2) – Written Warning – Remains on employee's record for eighteen (18) months

Step Three (3) – Five 5 Days Off – Remains on employee's record for two (2) years

Step Four (4) – Discharge

(Id. )

On October 31, 2017, Arterburn held a daily start-up meeting in the Assembly start-up area as usual. She led her team through a series of stretch exercises and discussed the day's assignments and goals. (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 8.) Approximately 17 employees attended this start-up meeting. (Id. ) During the meeting, Arterburn observed Jackson touch Cooper near her waist. (Cooper Dep. at 70:6-71:17, 77:19-23); (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 9.) This contact occurred on the outside of Cooper's clothing. (Arterburn Decl. at ¶9); (Declaration of Maria Hiller 4 at ¶ 18.) This was the first time Arterburn had ever observed Jackson touch Cooper in this manner. (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 10.)

Immediately after the October 31, 2017, start-up meeting, Arterburn approached Cooper regarding the incident to ask if she was alright. (Cooper Dep. at 79:17-80:21); (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 11.) Arterburn also told Cooper that she was going to report the incident. (Cooper Dep. at 79:17-80:21); (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 14.) Cooper confided in Arterburn that Jackson had similarly touched her the prior day. (Arterburn Decl. at ¶ 15.) This was the first time Arterburn learned of the October 30, 2017, incident. (Id. ). Cooper and her Union Steward, John Cain, went to the Human Resources Department (hereinafter "Human Resources") and reported this incident to Human Resources Manager Emily Jahr ("Jahr"). (Cooper Dep. at 80:22-81:8); (Jahr. Dep. at ¶ 11.)

Cooper explained Jackson's conduct that had occurred on October 31, 2017, and the prior day. (Cooper Dep. at 78:22-79:16); (Jahr Decl. at ¶¶ 11, 13-16.) Specifically, Cooper said that on October 30, 2017, Jackson touched her lower waist. (Cooper Dep. at 68:3-69:1; 91:24-92:3); (Jahr. Decl. at ¶ 13); (Errata Sheet to Deposition of Monique Cooper, at p. 2.) Cooper said she did not initially report the October 30, 2017, incident because she addressed it with Jackson directly. (Cooper Dep. at 69:17-19; 91:24-92:3); (Jahr Decl. at ¶ 15); (Cooper Dep. Errata at p. 2.) This was the first time Jahr learned of the October 30, 2017 incident. (Jahr. Decl. at ¶ 16.)

Cooper also said that on October 31, 2017, Jackson briefly touched her three times that day, with each contact lasting only seconds. (Cooper Dep. at 77:19-23; 91:24-92:3); (Jahr Decl. at ¶ 12); (Cooper Dep. Errata at p. 2.) Specifically, she said Jackson initially poked her approximately one inch above her waistline (Cooper Dep. at 71:25-72:8); then approximately three inches above her waistline (id. at 72:9-16); and, lastly, he used two fingers to poke the bottom side of her bra. (id. at 75:15-19). Prior to these two isolated incidents, Cooper and Jackson had a cordial relationship. (Id. at 64:20-22.)

However, in her affidavit, filed with her response to the motion for summary judgment, Cooper describes the touching incident as follows:

I was sexually harassed by a male co-employee at Eaton Corporation by the name of Michael Jackson. On October 30, 2017, he approached me from behind and placed his hands on my waist, and I told him, "Stop, I'm not fucking playing with you." Then on October 31, 2017, he again approached me from the back and placed his hands on my waist and I turned around and said, "What the fuck is your problem ... I'm not fucking playing with you! Stop!" Then Mr. Jackson proceeded to move his hands further up my waist and again I told him to "Stop. I'm not playing ..." After telling him this several times he moved his hand underneath my breast, and I shouted very loudly, "Stop, I'm not playing with you, what the fuck is wrong with you!" My Supervisor Becky approached me asking if I was ok. I told Becky I don't know what his problem is -- I've never played with him. My Supervisor Becky went to Human Resources and I was called into the office to tell my story.

Cooper Aff. at ¶ 3.

Eaton asserts that Jahr investigated Cooper's allegations by interviewing Cooper and Jackson. (Jahr Decl. at ¶ 18.) Jackson said he was "just joking around" and he kept tapping her back or hips to get her attention. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Jahr substantiated that Jackson touched Cooper for seconds on the outside of her clothing on October 30 and 31, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Eaton claims that Cooper concedes Eaton promptly and adequately investigated her allegations. (Cooper Dep. at 87:20-88:11, 89:3-10.)

It is undisputed that after receiving Cooper's complaint Jahr immediately placed Jackson on a three-day suspension. (Id. at 92:4-6); (Jahr. Decl. at ¶ 22.) She also placed Jackson on a Last Chance Agreement and physically separated Jackson from Cooper on the Assembly Line. (Cooper Dep. at 92:15-18); (Jahr Decl. at ¶¶ 23, 26); (Exhibit C to Jahr Decl., Copy of Last Chance Agreement).

The Last Chance Agreement provided, in pertinent part, "[a]ny further substantiated violations of the Harassment Policy throughout the duration of your employment with Eaton will result in termination." (Exhibit C to Jahr Decl.) Although Jackson explained during the meeting that he was "just joking around" and that he and Cooper had that kind of a friendship (Jahr Decl. at ¶ 19),...