Joyce v. Cylinder

SUSAN M. JOYCE, Plaintiff, v. MILWAUKEE CYLINDER, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 18-CV-1790

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

September 21, 2020

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. Facts

Milwaukee Cylinder manufactures hydraulic, pneumatic, and construction cylinders. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 1.) Susan Joyce began working for Milwaukee Cylinder in 1988, and in conjunction with her employment was a member of the International Association of Machinists, Local 1862. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 2.) In 2013 and 2014 she was a machine operator assigned as the primary operator of a thread roller machine. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 3.) She was also the "process group lead," or "PGL," and as part of those responsibilities she "was to schedule and prioritize jobs, troubleshoot issues, assist with training, and attend production meetings on behalf of her group." (ECF No. 56, ¶ 7.) Two other employees worked in this area, one of whom was John Carpenter. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 4.) Tim Dove was their supervisor. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 5.) James Kaplinski was the Operations Leader. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 33.)

Joyce and Carpenter had been romantically involved for more than a decade, and when the relationship ended it resulted in tension at work. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 9-10.) Carpenter complained to his supervisors on May 7, 2013, that Joyce was harassing him. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 12.) He alleged that Joyce "wrote him threatening notes, paged him over the P.A. to embarrass him, made up safety violations and shop rules about talking too loud in order to have him disciplined, reported production issues to supervisors that did not exist, used her [process group lead] title to control his overtime to hurt him financially, and spoke to him in a demeaning manner...." (ECF No. 56, ¶ 14.) "Specifically, Carpenter testified that Joyce left him notes stating they could never work in the same building if they broke up; recruited others to complain to management about his productivity; wrote baseless nonconformance reports on parts he cut; offered to give other employees unlimited overtime for complaining about Carpenter while taking his own overtime; reporting him to Dove for talking too loud in the shop; and ridiculed him for being bipolar, calling him 'crazy,' 'retard,' and 'bipolar' in front of coworkers." (ECF No. 56, ¶ 15.)

Milwaukee Cylinder investigated Carpenter's complaints, and a human resources manager substantiated many but not all of them. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 19.) Milwaukee Cylinderconsidered whether it was possible to separate Joyce and Carpenter but, according to supervisors, doing so would disrupt the flow of the shop. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 27.) And Milwaukee Cylinder could not simply move Joyce or Carpenter to a different job because no comparable jobs were available and because the agreement with the union limited such transfers. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 28-29.)

Therefore, Milwaukee Cylinder told Joyce and Carpenter not to have any contact with each other and that all issues should be directed to their supervisors. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 31.) This directive was set forth in a July 25, 2015 memorandum written by Kaplinski and addressed to both Joyce and Carpenter that stated: "YOU ARE TO HAVE NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTACT OR COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER WITH EACH OTHER AS LONG AS YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY MILWAUKEE CYLINDER. ALL QUESTIONS ARE TO BE ADDRESSED BY YOUR SUPERVISOR." (ECF Nos. 47-8; 56, ¶ 34 (emphasis in original).) Joyce disputes receiving this "direct order" (ECF Nos. 56, ¶ 38; 67, ¶ 1), and the copy of the order in the record is unsigned (ECF No. 47-8).

On July 29, 2013, Joyce turned off Carpenter's radio. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 49.) Milwaukee Cylinder concluded that by doing so Joyce violated the July 25 directive, and it issued her a one-day layoff notice. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 51, 52.) Joyce filed a grievance, which was denied. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 55.) The denial of the grievance, dated September 6, 2013, stated, "I find that you have violated a direct order from a supervisor, which was you are to have no direct or indirect contact or communications whatsoever with John Carpenter as long asyou are employed by Milwaukee Cylinder. All questions are to be addressed by your supervisor...." (ECF No. 56, ¶ 56.)

A few days after turning off Carpenter's radio Joyce complained to Dove about Carpenter's productivity. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 59.) Milwaukee Cylinder investigated and concluded that Carpenter's productivity was satisfactory. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 60.) It concluded that Joyce violated the direct order by making an unsubstantiated complaint about Carpenter's productivity and laid her off for three days. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 61.) Joyce's grievance regarding this discipline was also denied. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 62.)

On September 19, 2013, Joyce, union representatives, and a Milwaukee Cylinder representative met to discuss Joyce's grievances. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 66.) At the meeting Kaplinski reiterated that Joyce was not to have any direct or indirect contact with Carpenter. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 66.)

On November 1, 2013, Joyce contacted Dove so Dove could tell Carpenter to move some material. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 67.) Dove paged Carpenter, who did not respond. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 67.) Minutes after her first call, Joyce called Dove again, telling him she had been watching Carpenter eat candy for half an hour. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 67.) Milwaukee Cylinder concluded that, by monitoring Carpenter's whereabouts, Joyce again violated the direct order. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 68.) For this she was issued a five-day layoff. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 68.) Joyce filed another grievance, which was also denied. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 69.)

On November 7, 2013, Joyce filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division (ERD) in which she alleged that Milwaukee Cylinder had discriminated against her because of her sex. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 72.) At the suggestion of the union, Milwaukee Cylinder and Joyce agreed to mediation. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 75, 77.) At the mediation Milwaukee Cylinder agreed to expunge the most-recent layoff. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 78.) In turn, Joyce agreed that her grievances to the first three disciplinary actions lacked merit and that the discipline was appropriate. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 79.) At the mediation Milwaukee Cylinder reiterated that Joyce was not to have any sort of contact or interaction with Carpenter and was not to monitor his productivity. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 80.) Joyce indicated that she understood these general expectations. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 83.)

On December 13, 2013, Milwaukee Cylinder concluded that Joyce yet again violated the directive regarding Carpenter by instructing another employee to speak to a supervisor about Carpenter's productivity. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 84, 86.) Milwaukee Cylinder issued Joyce a five-day layoff for this incident. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 86.) Joyce again filed a grievance, which was denied. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 87, 88.) On December 19, 2013, Milwaukee Cylinder reissued the direct order, which Joyce signed, acknowledging that she understood it. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 91, 92.)

On April 22, 2014, Joyce asked an industrial engineer to perform an overall equipment effectiveness study on a small bandsaw to show that another worker was not being productive when he used the saw. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 93-94, 98.) Carpenter was theperson who primarily operated the small bandsaw. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 95.) Joyce reported that when she used the band saw she cut 200 pieces (presumably of tubes) a day, but the other worker would cut only six. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 94.) An overall equipment effectiveness study was the kind of action that employees resisted; no employee wanted to be measured for productivity. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 97.)

Milwaukee Cylinder concluded that it was clear that Joyce was not going to comply with direct orders to leave Carpenter alone, and therefore it was appropriate to terminate her employment. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 99-101.) In its letter terminating Joyce's employment Milwaukee Cylinder outlined a number of other recent incidents where Joyce had violated the direct order to leave Carpenter alone and for which she had not been disciplined. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 104.) For example, she wrote three "safety cards" related to Carpenter for alleged safety violations that Milwaukee Cylinder concluded were baseless or trivial. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 105.) She also repeatedly told another employee to turn down Carpenter's radio. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 107.)

On August 1, 2014, Joyce filed a second complaint with the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division alleging that Milwaukee Cylinder discriminated against her because of her sex and retaliated against her for filing the first complaint. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 109.)

2. Procedural History

A six-day hearing was held before an ERD administrative law judge (ALJ) in 2016. On September 29, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that Joyce had failed to provethat Milwaukee Cylinder discriminated or retaliated against her. (ECF No. 56, ¶¶ 110, 112.) Joyce sought review of that decision by Wisconsin's Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC). (ECF No. 56, ¶ 113.)

On November 12, 2018, Joyce filed this action against Milwaukee Cylinder and her union, International Association of Machinists, Local 1862, alleging that both discriminated against her based on her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 72-73.) She also alleges that Milwaukee Cylinder retaliated against her for complaining of sex discrimination. (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 76-77.)

On October 31, 2019, the LIRC affirmed the ALJ's decision. (ECF No. 42 at 3.) On November 27, 2019, Joyce filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court a petition for review of the LIRC's decision. (ECF No. 56, ¶ 116.)

On January 3, 2020, Milwaukee Cylinder filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of Joyce's appeal in state court of the unfavorable decision by the Wisconsin ERD. (ECF No. 41.) In response, on January 7, 2020, Joyce moved to voluntarily dismiss her state court action. (ECF No. 53-2 at 1-4.) Ten days later Milwaukee Cylinder and the union both filed motions for summary judgment in...