Mial v. Foxhoven

305 F.Supp.3d 984

Michael Eric MIAL, Plaintiff,

v.Jerry R. FOXHOVEN, et al., Defendants.

No. C17–4007–LTS

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed April 4, 2018

Jeffrey Michael Janssen, Janssen Law PLC, Des Moines, IA, Andrew L. LeGrant, LeGrant Law Firm PC, Urbandale, IA, for Plaintiff.

Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Department of Justice, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 26) for summary judgment filed by defendants Jerry Foxhoven, in his official capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, Richard Shults, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Division of Mental Health and Disability Services, Cory Turner, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO), Brad Wittrock, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Deputy Superintendent of CCUSO, and Dan Pingel, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Treatment Program Supervisor at CCUSO. Plaintiff Michael Eric Mial (Mial) has filed a resistance (Doc. No. 29) and defendants have replied (Doc. No. 30). I find that oral argument is not necessary. See N.D. Ia. L.R. 7(c).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mial commenced this action by filing a complaint (Doc. No. 2) on January 23, 2017. The complaint included several constitutional claims and claims under federal and Iowa law against various state employees. All of the claims relate to an allegation of unlawful discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, allegedly culminating in the termination of Mial's employment at CCUSO.

Defendants responded with a pre-answer motion (Doc. No. 8) to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which I granted in part and denied in part. See Doc. No. 19. Counts VI and XI were dismissed in their entirety, as was Mial's request for declaratory relief. Certain other claims were dismissed in part.

Defendants filed an answer (Doc. No. 20) on November 20, 2017, denying all remaining claims. Defendants then filed their motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2018. In his resistance, Mial states that he "does not resist entry of summary judgment with respect to all claims other than his religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (Counts VII and VIII of the Complaint)." Doc. No. 29 at 1. Thus, Counts VII and VIII of the complaint set forth the only claims that remain for consideration.¹

III. RELEVANT FACTS

Unless otherwise noted, the parties do not dispute the following facts:

Mial applied for and was awarded the position of Psychiatric Security Specialist (PSS) at CCUSO. His first day of work was December 7, 2015. Doc. No. 26–3 at 44, 165. State employees, including Mial, are considered probationary for the first six months of employment. Id. at 8, 58. The PSS position involves working directly with CCUSO patients,² as set out in the position description questionnaire. Id. at 7, 165–69. Among other things, a PSS employee: "[p]rovides care and treatment of patients by implementing program policies," "[p]erforms essential security functions, such as conducting unit counts and security checks and maintaining order and discipline on the unit," "[o]bserves and accurately documents information relating to each patient," "[a]ttends treatment team meetings" and "[f]ollows written and supervisory directives, personnel policies, and departmental policies." Id. at 165–66.

After a probationary employee has worked for six months, CCUSO supervisors must decide whether to retain or discharge the employee. Factors considered in this decision include how the probationary employee engaged with patients and other employees, as well as the employee's ability to follow work rules, policies and supervisory directives. Id. at 58. CCUSO employees are required to follow work rules, including those applicable to the use of employee email accounts.³ Id. at 58, 166.

Mial sent 49 emails using his CCUSO email account between December 22, 2015, and April 27, 2016. Id. at 87–153. These emails discussed administrative matters (id. at 87, 89–90, 92–98, 104–05, 114–18, 142, 144), scheduling issues (id. at 88, 99–102, 106, 119–25, 127, 130–39, 143, 148–53), and personal matters (id. at 91, 126, 128). On two occasions, Mial used his CCUSO email account to forward incident reports about CCUSO patients to the next shift of employees. Id. at 140, 145. Beginning March 5, 2016, Mial signed the majority of his emails sent through his CCUSO email account with the valediction "In Christ." Id. at 120, 123–53. The two emails containing patient information also included the valediction "In Christ." Id. at 140, 145.

Mial admits that he first used "In Christ" in his CCUSO email signature on March 5, 2016. Doc. No. 29–3 at 2 (¶ 12). He has not explained why he did not use that phrase before that date, or why he began doing so on that date. See, e.g. , Doc. No. 26–3 at 209. Mial has stated, however, that he uses the "In Christ" valediction for the purpose of proclaiming his faith in all he does. Pastor Steve Britton of Cavalry Baptist Church in Estherville, Iowa, testified that while Mial is not a member of his church, he and his family have attended services at the church "probably half a dozen times total." Id. at 34. Pastor Britton testified that members of his church believe that they are to "give out the gospel" and that his church "normally tr[ies] to train people to go out and knock on doors, give out gospel, give the gospel message." Id. at 34–35. When asked whether it would be necessary to use "In Christ" in a work email to proclaim one's faith, Pastor Britton responded:

A: It would be up to the boss.

Q: Okay.

A: You know. It—whatever—whatever the company policy is. If they tell you not to do it, then you don't do it. You know, we're to—we're to obey the authorities over us.

Q: And that would include the employer?

A: Yeah.

Id. at 35. Pastor Britton also testified that there are "several ways" available for followers to proclaim their faith to others. Id.

Mial's valediction came to the attention of his supervisors in April 2016. Turner emailed Wittrock regarding the use of the "In Christ" valediction on an email containing a patient incident report. Id. at 176. Turner testified that he made this decision because he thought the valediction "could potentially be an issue." Id. at 65. Specifically, Turner thought that the valediction implicated issues of keeping church and state separate, and promoting one specific religion over another. Id. Turner testified that CCUSO policy directly addressed this issue, which he considered to be rules governing "the use of e-mail in a professional fashion."⁴ Id. at 66.

On April 11, 2016, Wittrock asked Pingel, Mial's direct supervisor, to address Mial's valediction. Id. On April 12, 2016, Wittrock sent an email memorandum to all staff at CCUSO stating: "Email signatures need to contain business related information only and employees shall not include any personal messages." Id. at 177. While other staff stopped using non-business-related email signatures, Mial continued to use the "In Christ" valediction. Id. at 84. On April 20, 2016, Pingel and Mial met to discuss Mial's non-compliance with the email signature rule. At this meeting, Mial requested to keep his email without any changes. Id. at 82. Pingel testified that Mial did not explain in great detail why he wished to keep using the valediction, stating only that "religion should be in every component of your life or something to that extent." Id. at 82. Pingel's notes from that meeting state:

PSS Mial ... explain[ed] that his religious views were so important to him, that he cannot separate business from religious views ....

PSS Mial explained that he anticipated that supervisory staff would eventually speak with him about the "In Christ" signature line. Mial remarked "fire me if you have to, I am not removing it." PSS Mial stated further that he has already discussed the potential ramifications of this decision with his wife, and he is willing to "accept the consequences."

Id. at 179.

After the April 20, 2016, meeting, Turner and Wittrock consulted with Janelle Bertrand, a human resources employees from the Iowa Department of Administrative Services (DAS) as to how they should resolve Mial's failure to follow supervisory directives. Id. at 50–51, 177. On April 21, 2016, Wittrock sent a follow-up email to all staff repeating the directive to refrain from inserting personal messages in their email signatures. Id. at 178.

On April 28, 2016, Mial had a second meeting with Turner and Wittrock to discuss his non-compliance with the email signature rule. Mial secretly recorded the audio of this meeting on his cell phone. Id. at 14 (the recording has been provided to the court on a DVD–R disc). During this meeting, Turner and Wittrock explained the purpose of the email policy (keeping personal lives and business separate), as well as the importance of CCUSO employees following supervisory directives. Recording at 1:00–1:48. Further, they explained their belief that all email at CCUSO was potentially subject to a discovery or an open records request. During this meeting, Mial explained that his use of the valediction was a result of his strong religious beliefs, as he used the valediction to proclaim his faith. Id. at 2:19–2:32. Mial did not request or propose any accommodations and stated simply that he would continue to use the valediction. Id. at 4:12–18.

Mial repeated his earlier statement that he understood that his position may cost him his job (id. at 4:25–30) and asked whether he needed to turn in his keys now (id. at 6:28–39). The parties appear to have left this meeting with the understanding that Mial would be discharged if he did not comply with the email signature rule and, in fact, Mial's employment ended that day. Doc. No....