Easterday v. Whirlpool Corp.

SHERIN EASTERDAY, Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 19-CV-20-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

March 30, 2020

ORDER

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

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY..........................2

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION...........................2

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD..........................4

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND.........................5

A. The PIC Group, Inc...................................5

B. Easterday's employment with PIC..........................6

C. Rick Raue's employment with Whirlpool.....................6

D. Easterday's resignation.................................7

E. Raue's alleged harassment of Easterday......................8

F. Other allegations of prior incidents involving Raue..............9

G. Raue was not Easterday's supervisor.......................10

VI. ANALYSIS.............................................11

A. Parties' Arguments...................................11

B. The Parties Have Identified No Issues of Material Fact...........11

VII. CONCLUSION..........................................18

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Defendant Whirlpool Corporation's ("Whirlpool") "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion") (docket no. 30).

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff Sherin Easterday filed a "Petition at Law" ("Petition") (docket no. 4) in the Iowa District Court for Linn County. In the Petition, Easterday alleges one count of sexual harassment in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act ("ICRA"), Iowa Code section 216.6. See generally Petition at ¶¶ 1-4. On February 15, 2019, Whirlpool filed a Notice of Removal (docket no. 1), bringing the case before this court. On February 18, 2019, Whirlpool filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses (docket no. 2).

On January 10, 2020, Whirlpool filed the Motion. On February 7, 2020, Easterday filed the Resistance (docket no. 33). On February 14, 2020, Whirlpool filed the Reply (docket no. 34). Neither party has requested oral argument, and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception." Kessler v. Nat'l Enter., Inc., 347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Godfrey v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 161 F.3d 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 1998)). Even if the parties do not dispute the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction, a court may not preside over a case without it. See Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001) ("It is axiomatic that a court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has jurisdiction.").

An individual's citizenship "is determined by a person's physical presence in a state along with his [or her] intent to remain there indefinitely." Altimore v. Mount MercyCollege, 420 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2005). Easterday resides in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa. Petition ¶ 1; Notice of Removal ¶ 9. There is evidence in the record that she intends to remain in Iowa indefinitely. In 2017, Easterday listed her Iowa address on her Iowa Civil Rights Commission Complaint Form. See Whirlpool's Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Whirlpool's Appendix") (docket no. 30-4) at 14. Similarly, in 2018, The Iowa Civil Rights Commission corresponded with Easterday at her Iowa address. See id. at 5. Further, in 2019, Easterday met with her family care physician, Dr. Katherine Alatorre, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where Easterday resides. See Easterday's Appendix in Support of Resistance to Defenant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Easterday's Appendix") (docket no. 33-4) at 154; see also id. at 163 (providing that Easterday began outpatient therapy treatment with Kaitlin Gudenkauf in Cedar Rapids, Iowa). Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Easterday is a citizen of Iowa.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business[.]" Id. Whirlpool is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Petition ¶ 2; Notice of Removal ¶ 10.

Additionally, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 28-37.

Accordingly, the court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims because complete diversity exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ("The district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.").

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Summary judgment is proper 'if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show'" an absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Hilde v. City of Eveleth, 777 F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Massey-Diez v. Univ. of Iowa Cmty. Med. Servs., Inc., 826 F.3d 1149, 1157 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gazal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 647 F.3d 833, 837-38 (8th Cir. 2011)). "The movant 'bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,' and must identify 'those portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the movant has done so, "the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324).

On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009)). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial," and summary judgment is appropriate. Ricci, 557 U.S. at 586 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). "The nonmovant 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . .'"Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586). Instead, "[t]o survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate [its] allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [its] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy." Williams v. Mannis, 889 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2018) (third alteration in original) (quoting Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011)). Mere "self-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010). "Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment." Reasonover v. St. Louis Cty., 447 F.3d 569, 578 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2003)).

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and affording her all reasonable inferences, the uncontested material facts are as follows.

A. The PIC Group, Inc.

The PIC Group, Inc. ("PIC") is a quality assurance company that is hired by manufacturing companies to inspect and/or rework finished products before they are sent out for sale. "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("SUMF") (docket no. 30-2) ¶ 5. During the time period relevant to this case, PIC provided quality assurance services to Whirlpool at Whirlpool's Amana, Iowa facility. Id. ¶ 8. In addition to Whirlpool, PIC also provided quality assurance services to Whirlpool's suppliers at the Amana facility. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. PIC contracted directly with Whirlpool's suppliers, and the suppliers paid PIC directly for the costs associated with PIC's quality assurance labor. Id. ¶ 11.

Employees for PIC perform their work onsite at the location of the company that contracts for PIC's services. Id. ¶ 6. Whirlpool has no involvement in PIC's hiring orpersonnel decisions. Id. ¶ 13. Whirlpool and PIC do not share employees and do not have any overlapping management. Id. ¶ 12. Whirlpool does not pay PIC employees. Id. ¶ 14. PIC employs supervisors who oversee PIC employees at the locations where PIC provides its services. Id. ¶ 7.

B. Easterday's employment with PIC

On May 24, 2016, Easterday was hired by PIC to work as a Quality Inspector. Id. ¶ 15. Prior to being hired by PIC, Easterday submitted an application to PIC and participated in an interview with PIC. Id. From May 2016 through September 2016, Easterday was assigned by PIC to perform quality assurance work at Whirlpool's Amana facility, as ordered by either Whirlpool or Whirlpool's suppliers. Id. ¶ 16. Easterday's primary job was to inspect refrigerators. Id. ¶ 17. Each day, Easterday clocked in and out from work on computers provided by PIC. Id. ¶ 18. She received her daily job assignments from her PIC supervisors. Id. Easterday's...