Hernandez v. John Morrell & Co.

NORA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOHN MORRELL & CO., d/b/a CURLY'S FOODS,and SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., Defendants.

No. C 17-4033-MWB

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

August 27, 2018

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

A. Factual Background ............................................................... 2

1. The parties ................................................................... 2

2. The alleged safety violations ............................................. 3

3. The termination ............................................................. 6

B. Procedural Background ........................................................... 7

1. The lawsuit and the removal ............................................. 7

2. The summary judgment motion .......................................... 7

C. Arguments Of The Parties ........................................................ 8

1. The defendants' opening argument ..................................... 8

2. Hernandez's response ..................................................... 9

3. The defendants' reply .................................................... 11

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 12

A. Applicable Standards ............................................................. 12

1. Summary judgment standards ......................................... 12

2. Standards for retaliatory discharge claims .......................... 14

B. Application Of The Standards .................................................. 16

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 22

An employee at a meat-processing plant claims that she was terminated, in violation of Iowa public policy, in retaliation for making continuing claims for worker's compensation benefits for a shoulder injury. On a motion for summary judgment, however, her employer and its corporate parent contend that the undisputed evidence shows that the employee was terminated for her second safety violation in just four months. I must decide whether the employee has generated a jury question on the alleged retaliatory motive for her termination.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

This statement of the factual background does not necessarily set out all the parties' factual allegations in support of and resistance to the defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment. Rather, it focuses on the key facts to put in context the parties' disputes. Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed.

1. The parties

Plaintiff Nora Hernandez was employed as a production worker at the Curly's Foods pork processing plant in Sioux City, Iowa, from August 2000 until April 24, 2015. Defendant John Morrell & Co., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Smithfield Foods, Inc., does business as Curly's Foods and owns and operates the pork processing plant where Hernandez was employed. That plant employed approximately 620 people at the time of Hernandez's termination. There was no union at the plant.

For the last seven years of her employment, Hernandez operated a band saw, which she used to cut slabs of pork ribs to customer specifications. Prior to January 2015, Hernandez had never been disciplined for any unsafe conduct at work. Hernandezwas counseled in April 2013, however, that her supervisors were concerned that she could not keep up with the expected pace of production for a saw operator, owing to the manner in which she performed her job. The defendants contend that this fact is immaterial, except to the extent that the memorialization of the counseling stresses that Hernandez was not being asked to go faster, because doing so would be a safety risk, and it shows that the defendants were devoting time to helping Hernandez produce acceptable product at an efficient standard.

In December 2013, Hernandez injured her right shoulder and left knee when she slipped on the stairs at work. She was initially seen by a nurse practitioner for that injury, but she was later referred to an orthopedic surgeon. The orthopedist treated Hernandez conservatively from March 2014, through October 2014, during which time, Hernandez was placed on light duty. The defendants contend that light duty assignments for employees with work-related injuries were commonplace, but Hernandez admits only that she was on light duty at various times and that she was aware of other employees who had been on light duty. In October 2014, Hernandez's treating physician released her to full duty. Hernandez asserts that, between October 14, 2014, and January 15, 2015, she continued to experience pain in her right shoulder while she was performing her regular job, but the defendants contend that this fact is immaterial, because Hernandez had been released to full duty, and her supervisors had no reason to believe that she could not fully perform her duties.

2. The alleged safety violations

In January 2015, Hernandez cut her right middle finger on the band saw that she was operating. The defendants assert that, based on an investigation conducted at the workplace, they determined that Hernandez reached around to the back of the saw and attempted to retrieve a stuck piece of meat, instead of stopping the machine and using a meat hook to release the piece of meat that was stuck, as required by proper procedures.Hernandez admits that this was the defendants' determination, but she denies that the determination was correct or that it was based on an investigation. Rather, she contends that she did not have time to shut off her saw before her hand was pulled into the blade of the saw, which the defendants dispute. Hernandez received medical treatment for her cut and was placed on light duty for several weeks as a result of this injury. In addition, because the defendants determined that Hernandez's injury resulted from her failure to follow safety protocols, the defendants gave Hernandez a three-day suspension. Hernandez disputed the imposition of any disciplinary action for this incident at the time. The defendants contend that the safety violation in January 2015 was serious enough to warrant termination, but that they chose not to take that step at that time. Hernandez admits only that she was not terminated at that time. Hernandez asserts that, under the Curly's Foods policy, following imposition of a suspension due to the January 2015 incident, she was barred from seeking to transfer into another job for a year. The defendants contend that this fact is immaterial, because Hernandez never indicated any interest in transferring to another job. Hernandez returned to work on light duty after this incident, but she was working without restrictions from March 20, 2015, until April 20, 2015.

Hernandez contends that, from March 20 to March 31, 2015, she continued to experience shoulder pain while working at her regular job as a saw operator, but the defendants contend that this fact is immaterial, because the defendants had no reason to believe that Hernandez could not fully perform her job and because there is no evidence that Hernandez told her supervisors that she was continuing to experience pain. In March 2015, the defendants' worker's compensation carrier sent Hernandez to another orthopedic surgeon to get a second opinion about her ongoing shoulder pain. The second surgeon disagreed with the conservative treatment that Hernandez had been receiving thus far and, instead, recommended that she have surgery on her shoulder, which wouldbe scheduled "over the next couple of weeks." That information was transmitted to the nurse at the plant on or about March 31, 2015, after Hernandez returned from her consultation with the physician. Kathy Peterson, who was the Human Resources Manager for the Curly's Foods plant, acknowledges that, in the ordinary course of business, she would have learned from the nurse about the fact that Hernandez's doctor had recommended that Hernandez undergo surgery, but Ms. Peterson testified that she did not recall being told that surgery had been recommended for Hernandez. Ms. Peterson was not responsible for securing approval for that surgery or managing the logistics associated with the doctor's recommendation. Hernandez continued to work at her regular job after the recommendation that she have surgery, although she contends that she went to the plant nurse's office on an almost daily basis to apply ice to her shoulder. The defendants assert that they understood that Hernandez had been released to perform her regular job at this time and that she did not tell her supervisors that she could not do it.

On April 20, 2015, Hernandez became frustrated for reasons that she states included worsening pain in her shoulder; the speed of the line, which had not changed despite her complaint about it to a lead employee; and the conduct of a new employee, Ana Garcia, who was, in Hernandez's view, not properly laying out slabs of ribs on the conveyor belt. Hernandez believed that Ms. Garcia was allowing some of the slabs to double up, instead of laying them out separately. The protocol for situations in which slabs are doubling up is for the band saw operator to set the extra slab of ribs on the operator's table, to be returned to the vat and re-placed on the conveyor belt. On this day, however, Hernandez admits that she picked up a slab of ribs and threw it back across the conveyor belt toward the vat. The parties dispute whether a slab of ribs weighs between eight and eleven pounds or between two and three pounds and how close the slab thrown by Hernandez came to any other employee, including Ms. Garcia. Thedefendants assert that throwing the slab of ribs around saw operators, other employees, and equipment was unsafe. Hernandez disputes whether tossing the slab of ribs was...