Parada v. Great Plains Intern. of Sioux City, Inc.

483 F.Supp.2d 777

Jennifer Jean PARADA, Plaintiff, v. GREAT PLAINS INTERNATIONAL OF SIOUX CITY, INC., Robert Bye, Arnold Warntjes, and Larry Herbst, Defendants.

No. C 06-4002-MWB.

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

April 11, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Blake Parker, Blake, Parker Law Office, Fort Dodge, IA, for Plaintiff.

Margaret M. Prahl, Heidman Redmond Fredregill Patterson Plaza Dykstra & Prahl, Sioux City, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................783
      A.  Factual Background ........................................................783
      B.  Procedural Background .....................................................788
 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................................790
      A.  Standards For Summary Judgment ............................................790
      B.  Individual Liability ......................................................792
      C.  Sexual Harassment .........................................................793
          1.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................793
              a.  The defendants' initial argument ..................................793
              b.  Parada's response .................................................794
              c.  The defendants' reply .............................................794
              d.  The parties' oral arguments .......................................795
          2.  Analysis ..............................................................798
              a.  Elements of the claim .............................................798
              b.  Harassment by Warntjes and Herbst .................................799
                   i.  "Unwelcome" harassment .......................................799

ii.  "Severe" harassment ..........................................801
      D.  Sexual Discrimination .....................................................804
          1.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................804
              a.  The defendants' initial argument ..................................804
              b.  Parada's response .................................................804
              c.  The defendants' reply .............................................805
          2.  Analysis ..............................................................805
              a.  Prohibitions and analytical process ...............................805
              b.  Parada's prima facie case .........................................806
                   i.  The "qualification/meeting legitimate expectations"
                         element ....................................................806
                  ii.  The "similarly situated male/inference of
                         discrimination" element ....................................807
              c.  The defendants' legitimate reasons ................................808
              d.  Pretext and discriminatory animus .................................810
      E.  Retaliation ...............................................................811
          1.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................811
              a.  The defendants' initial argument ..................................811
              b.  Parada's response .................................................812
              c.  The defendants' reply .............................................812
              d.  Parada's oral argument ............................................812
          2.  Analysis ..............................................................813
              a.  Parada's prima facie case .........................................813
                   i.  Protected activity ...........................................813
                  ii.  Causal connection ............................................813
              b.  Legitimate reason and pretext .....................................814
      F.  Unequal Pay ...............................................................815
          1.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................815
              a.  The defendants' initial argument ..................................815
              b.  Parada's response .................................................816
              c.  The defendants' reply .............................................816
          2.  Analysis ..............................................................816
              a.  Prohibitions and applicable standards .............................816
              b.  Parada's prima facie case .........................................818
III.  CONCLUSION ....................................................................819

A female "service writer" for a company that sells and services diesel trucks alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, IOWA CODE CH. 216, and unequal pay in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The defendants — the company, one of its owners, and two of its managers — have moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims. Thus, the court must determine which, if any, of the plaintiffs claims should go to a jury.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

The court will not attempt here an exhaustive dissertation on the undisputed and disputed facts in this case. Rather, the court will set forth sufficient of the facts, both undisputed and disputed, to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendants' motion for summary judgment.¹

The parties agree that plaintiff Jennifer Parada applied for an advertised position as a diesel technician with defendant Great Plains International Of Sioux City, Inc. (GPI), in March 2004, shortly after completing a diesel technician and service management course at a technical school in Wyoming. GPI is a diesel sales, service, and repair facility in Sioux City, Iowa. Defendant Robert Bye is the president of GPI and one of its shareholders.² Defendant Arnold Warntjes is the service manager for GPI and defendant Larry Herbst is the body shop manager. The defendants contend that, during the time that Parada worked at GPI, GPI employed in the service department a day lead person, a night lead person, a warranty clerk, and eight to twelve diesel technicians/mechanics. Parada disputes that all of these positions were filled continuously during her tenure and disputes the number of diesel technicians employed by GPI. The defendants also assert that diesel technicians were paid between $8.50 and $17.50 per hour, depending upon experience, longevity, and duties. Parada does not dispute that contention.

Instead of hiring Parada for the advertised diesel technician position, however, GPI offered Parada a newly-created position as a "service writer," because the hiring manager noted that Parada had some service management training. GPI managers hoped that the new service writer would improve customer satisfaction, because the service writer would take over some of the duties formerly performed by GPI's "lead" mechanics and a warranty clerk, as well as other duties that the company's managers felt were not being performed adequately. The defendants describe the service writer position as "experimental," but Parada denies that characterization. She does, however, admit that she knew that GPI had not had a service writer before, so that she would be the first service writer at GPI. Parada accepted the service writer job. The parties agree that Parada was paid $11.50 per hour, which the defendants assert was well above what she would have received as a starting diesel technician. The defendants also point out that Parada had no experience as a diesel technician. Parada counters that she had experience through training. Parada started working for GPI as GPI's service writer in April 2004.

Although there are no written job descriptions for positions at GPI, the parties agree that Parada's duties as the service writer consisted of the following: greeting customers, writing up work orders; scheduling and assigning work to be done by the technicians; estimating completion time for the customer; obtaining information about the vehicles brought in for repair; keeping customers advised about the progress of their repairs; handling warranty parts; interacting with technicians; completing information on repair orders, including the customer's complaint, the cause identified by the diesel technician, and the correction made; establishing the customer's method of payment; interacting with customers to be sure that they were satisfied with service and repairs; and performing some vehicle repairs. Parada asserts that, in addition, the duties of the service writer included doing some of the work formerly done by the day lead person, although she does not specify what work; keeping the diesel technicians advised of service bulletins; making sure that the diesel technicians did their "stories" on hard cards; picking up and returning customer trucks; and operating a forklift.

The defendants contend that the duties of the lead person included the following: performing work on repair orders; diagnosing the cause of reported malfunctions; examining trucks to see if additional safety or service work was needed; documenting the work performed; reviewing and understanding technical bulletins; test driving and shuttling vehicles; training and supervising...