Parker v. Steel

DONNA N. PARKER v. BENTELER STEEL, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-01453

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

June 20, 2019

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

RULING

Plaintiff Donna N. Parker ("Parker") sued her former employer, Benteler Steel/Tube Manufacturing Corp. ("Benteler") alleging claims of sexual harassment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. Pending before the Court is Benteler's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 49] seeking dismissal of Parker's claims. Parker has filed an Opposition [Doc. Nos. 61, 67]. Benteler has filed a Reply [Doc. No. 63].

For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. FACTS

Benteler specializes in manufacturing and processing seamless hot-rolled steel tubes and seamless cold-drain steel tubes for automotive, precision engineering, construction, and energy production/exploratory drilling industries. Parker was hired by Benteler in June of 2015 as a bar saw operator in its Shreveport, Louisiana facility. [Doc. No. 49-4, p. 1]

A bar saw operator works in the billet cutting area. A "billet" is a long, rectangular length of semi-finished metal that can be folded or rolled into a finished product such as pipe or steel bars. The saw line cuts the billets according to the length and weight requirements for a particular production job. The bar saw operator is responsible for starting the automated cutting process and supervises and controls the process. [Doc. No. 49-3, pp. 7-8, 42-45].

The bar saw that Parker was required to operate has a circular blade approximately 27.5 inches in diameter and weighs 33.5 pounds. Her job also required that she operate a forklift and an overhead crane, which are used to move the steel billets and replace the saw blade. The overhead crane is on a track near the top of Benteler's facility approximately 36 feet above the plant floor. The crane is capable of moving up to 33,000 pounds. Parker's job required that she regularly use the crane to move solid steel bars and billets, which can range from 4.3 feet to 50 feet long and weigh between 435 pounds and 5,105 pounds. [Doc. No. 49-4, p. 1; Doc. No. 49-6]

Parker was supervised by Troy Lambright ("Lambright"). Lambright in turn reported to Darryl Guy ("Guy"), Benteler's Area Manager for Hot Mill Operations. [Doc. No. 49-4, p.1]

As a newly-hired employee, Parker was placed on a 90-day probationary status while she learned and trained in her job. Bentler assigned an experienced operator, Gregg Black ("Black"), to train Parker. By August of 2015, Benteler became concerned that Parker was unable to perform simple tasks associated with her job, such as starting the saw. Parker blamed her trainer, Black, for her deficiencies and requested a new trainer. [Id.]

Benetler granted her request and assigned Nick Smiley ("Smiley") to be her new trainer. Soon thereafter Smiley reported that Parker's attitude was extremely poor, she lacked direction, and she was not qualified for her position. [Id. p. 2].

Parker voiced an interest in moving to a different position in the facility, rather than continue to train in the bar saw operator position for which she was hired. She asked Lambright to sign a referral form to bid into a new position. However, she was informed that she could apply for other positions but was reminded that she was still in her 90-day probationary period and an employee cannot transfer to a new job during that period. She was also cautioned that herlack of progress in her current training may not reflect well in her pursuit of another position. [Id.]

On September 15, 2015, Parker was issued an Employee Discipline Report outlining her poor performance and her probationary period was extended by four weeks. Other new employees who had been in the position for less time than Parker were already operating the bar saws without supervision, and in some cases, were providing instruction to Parker. [Id.; Doc. No. 49-7].

On or around September 21, 2015, Bentler conducted a 90-day evaluation of Parker's work performance, and she received the lowest possible score in almost every category, including Initiative, Work Standards, Job Knowledge, and Teamwork/Cooperation. [Doc. No. 49-8].

On or around September 25, 2015, Rhonda Simmons ("Simmons"), Benteler's Human Resources Director, met with Parker regarding her performance evaluation, and told her that Benteler's primary concern was her work performance. Simmons requested that she focus on learning her job. Parker placed the blame on a lack of training and requested yet another trainer. Simmons instructed Parker to address her request to Benteler's Director of Operations, but Parker never did. [Doc. No. 49-4, p.2].

On October 26, 2015, Parker filed a charge with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on race, sex, and retaliation (Charge No. 846-2015-40693) [Doc. No. 1-2, p. 12]. She alleged she was receiving poor performance evaluations and was denied a requested transfer to a different position because of her sex and race. [Id.]

On or around November 5, 2015, when asked to move a forklift because it was hindering the work of her co-workers, Parker argued with her supervisor and said he was being "sexist"due to the direction he gave to her. She ultimately moved the forklift but continued to sit, without engaging in any work activity. [Id.]

On or around November 9, 2015, Parker was scheduled to "shadow" a crane operator as part of her training, but a supervisor found her sitting outside of her work area. Parker stated that she did not need to train on the crane, did not have to do anything she was not comfortable doing, and she was not going to be in her current job much longer. The assignment was reiterated to Parker, but she continued to argue with her supervisor. [Id.]

On or around November 11, 2015, Parker refused to assist a supervisor in troubleshooting a problem in the production process. Parker was argumentative and claimed that one of her co-workers asked her to perform a different task. [Id., p.3]

On November 23, 2015, Parker was issued a second Employee Discipline Report as a result of her behavior. [Id.; Doc. No. 49-9]. Also on November 23, 2015, another employee reported that Parker looked at messages on his personal cell phone without his permission, and that he found working with Parker to be difficult. [Doc. No. 49-4, p.3]. Parker was issued a third Employee Discipline Report as a result of this incident on December 7, 2015. [Doc. No. 49-10].

On or around November 9, 2015, Parker's doctor wrote to Benteler about medication that Parker was taking. The doctor explained that Parker's medication may cause dizziness and frequent urination and stated she would appreciate any work considerations due to Parker's medication. The doctor did not state what those considerations should be. [Doc. No. 49-4, p.3].

Parker was absent from work in early December of 2015. She returned to work and provided a doctor's excuse stating she could perform her job with no restrictions. [Id.; Doc. No. 49-12]. However, on December 15, 2015, Parker refused to operate the bar saw by herself andstated she could not run the overhead crane because she was on medication that caused dizziness. [Doc. No. 49-4, p. 3; Doc. No. 49-3, p. 21-22]

Operating the bar saw and crane are essential functions of the bar saw operator job. Operating the equipment while experiencing dizziness could have jeopardized Parker's safety, the safety of her co-workers, and Benteler's equipment. [Doc. No. 49-4, p.3]. Following a meeting with Benteler's human resources department, Parker was placed on a leave of absence. To appropriately evaluate what job duties Parker could safely and effectively perform, Simmons instructed Parker to obtain information from her doctor regarding whether she could safely perform the essential functions of the bar saw operator job and whether any limitation or accommodation was needed. [Id.]

To facilitate its request that Parker obtain information from her doctor, Simmons provided Parker with a copy of her job description and a list of questions to be answered. [Id.; Doc. No. 49-13]. On January 19, 2016, Parker's doctor issued a letter stating that Parker could perform the essential functions of her job "with reasonable accommodation." [Id.; Doc. No. 49-3, p. 46]. However, the only accommodation identified was "easy access to a restroom," which Benteler was already providing to Parker in response to an almost identical letter provided by Parkers physician on November 9, 2015. [Doc. No. 49-4, p. 3]

Although not stated in the January 19, 2016 letter, Parker testified during her deposition that her doctor specifically concluded that Parker could not operate the overhead crane used to move the steel billets and replace the saw blade. Her testimony on this point was as follows:

Q. Yes. And Dr. Kamphuis issued a letter dated January 19, 2016, that's what's been marked as Exhibit 9; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And she mentioned in the January 19^th letter that you needed to have access to the restroom because the medicine made you use the bathroom?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. But with respect to the medication and some of the job duties that were included in the memo that you took her, am I correct that she confirmed that the medicine was still going to present a risk of you getting dizzy and, therefore, you shouldn't be doing some of those things?

A. Operating a crane I was going to be dizzy, not the saw.

Q. So Dr. Kamphuis specifically concluded that you could operate the saw, but that you could not operate the crane?

A. Right....

[Doc. No. 49-3, p. 27]

Since the letter provided by Parker's doctor failed to address her reports of "dizziness" or her statements that she could not perform her job, Simmons gave Parker the option of obtaining additional information from her doctor or completing a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Because Parker said her doctor would not provide the requested information, Benteler's...