Reeves v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.

KATHERINE REEVES, Plaintiff,

v.TENNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

Dated: May 20, 2013

Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM

The defendant, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. ("TFMIC"), has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 15), to which the plaintiff, Katherine Reeves, filed a Response in opposition (Docket No. 19), and TFMIC filed a Reply (Docket No. 23). For the reasons stated herein, TFMIC's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

BACKGROUND¹

I. Open PCR Position

TFMIC's regional claims office in Waynesboro, Tennessee is staffed by Claims Assistants, Property Claims Representatives ("PCRs" or "adjusters"), Auto Field Claims Representatives, and a Regional Claims Manager. TFMIC originally hired the plaintiff, Reeves, as a Claims Assistant in the Waynesboro office in April 2006.²

In December 2010, a PCR position came open in the Waynesboro office. Relative to Reeves' position as a Claims Assistant, moving to the PCR position would constitute a promotion. The Regional Claims Manager at the time, Mike Delk, was responsible for filling the PCR position. TFMIC gave Delk essentially unfettered discretion in deciding whom to hire, and provided him no written guidelines or criteria with which to evaluate applicants.

Reeves applied for the open PCR position on or about January 17, 2011. During the time frame in which Reeves applied for the position, Delk made gender-based discriminatory comments, expressing to Reeves that he would not hire a woman as a PCR because of "safety" concerns and/or his bad experiences with three previous female PCRs. Delk also contacted other Regional Claims Managers to determine whether the female PCRs had performed differently than male PCRs.

Out of multiple applicants, Delk interviewed nine candidates in late January 2011, including Reeves and eight males. Delk then narrowed the field of candidates to Reeves and Greg Martin, an external male applicant. Delk conducted second-round interviews of bothcandidates. During his interview of Reeves, Delk stated that Reeves had "brought [Delk] over from the dark side," purporting to reflect Delk's change of heart as to whether a woman could work as a PCR. In January 2011, after that interview and while Delk was still considering whether to choose Martin or Reeves, Reeves received a call at work about a personal situation involving her daughter. Reeves raised her voice during this conversation. There is conflicting testimony as to whether Reeves made additional calls concerning this personal issue that morning. At any rate, Delk testified that, having observed Reeves' reaction to the call(s) that morning, he believed that it would be inappropriate to hire a PCR who would let a personal issue affect her ability to do her job. Reeves vigorously disputes that she "overreacted" to the call, that she made additional calls that morning, and, regardless, that her conduct that morning could have justified Delk's purported basis for choosing Martin instead of her. On February 2, 2011, soon after this incident, Delk made a conditional offer to Martin, pending a background check and approval from TFMIC's home office.³

After Delk informed Reeves that he had offered the position to Martin instead of her, Reeves called Byron Garrett, Vice President of Claims for TFMIC. In that conversation, Reeves recounted Delk's discriminatory comments and urged TFMIC to review Delk's decision-making process. Garrett immediately spoke with Delk, who confirmed Reeves' account of events, including the fact that he had made discriminatory comments. Garrett placed a hold on Martin's conditional offer and met with TFMIC General Counsel Ed Lancaster and Assistant GeneralCounsel Julie Bowling. There is conflicting testimony as to whether Garrett, Lancaster, or Bowling spoke with Delk about the incident during that meeting. At any rate, within two days of receiving Reeves' complaint about Delk's decision, Garrett, Lancaster, and Bowling decided to rescind Martin's conditional offer and to reopen the hiring process for the PCR position.

In the re-opened hiring process, Delk had no involvement or input. Lancaster and Bowling enlisted TFMIC Assistant Vice President Rick McDonald to assist them in the interviewing process. TFMIC reviewed the applications from previous applicants (including Reeves) and two additional applicants not previously considered by Delk, including internal female applicant Takashli Otey.⁴ McDonald and Bowling scheduled six applicants for interviews, including Reeves, and interviewed these candidates on February 9, 2011. Reeves did not make a good impression on McDonald and Bowling during her interview. McDonald felt that Reeves seemed anxious and gave answers that were difficult to follow. Bowling felt that Reeves gave rambling answers to questions and was unnecessarily critical of her coworkers.

After weighing several factors, including the applicants' claims adjusting experience, the applicants' tenure at TFMIC (if any), their reviews from supervisors, and their respective interview performances, McDonald and Bowling each ranked the top three candidates. Independently, they both ranked Bryan Bone first (male), Takashli Otey (female) second, and Greg Martin (male) third. After learning that Bone was no longer interested in the PCR position, McDonald and Bowling offered the position to Otey, who accepted it. With the exception of a six-month period in which she left work to be with her children, Otey had worked for TFMICsince 2003, when she was hired for a data entry position, and had worked as an "Office Claims Representative" ("OCR") at TFMIC for the three years preceding her interview with McDonald and Bowling. McDonald and Bowling believed that Otey had gained valuable experience as an OCR and that she made a good impression during her interview. Otey had also received a positive recommendation from her supervisor and was otherwise qualified for the position.

Reeves admits that TFMIC did not discriminate on the basis of gender in choosing to hire Otey as part of the re-opened hiring process. Reeves also admits that Otey was otherwise qualified for the position. However, Reeves argues that TFMIC is liable for (1) gender discrimination as a result of Delk's (ultimately rescinded) decision to hire Martin for the PCR position, and/or (2) retaliation for utilizing, in the re-opened hiring process, "different non-gender-related selection criteria than had been used by Delk in making his decision." (See Docket No. 19, Pltf. Resp. at p. 17.)⁵

II. Alleged Post-Complaint Harassment

Reeves argues that, after she (successfully) complained to management about Delk, she was subjected to workplace harassment. Before she complained, she was treated kindly by her coworkers and included in social activities.

However, approximately two days after TFMIC announced that Otey would be filling the OCR position, Reeves saw Delk invite David Parsons, one of the three adjusters whom Reevesgenerally assisted, into his Delk's office. Following that meeting, to which Reeves was not privy, she claims that "everything changed in the office." (Reeves Dep. at 154:11-12.) Initially, she complained to TFMIC about the following conduct in March and April 2011⁶ :

• Her coworkers excluded her from all social conversations, although she stated at deposition that this "was fine" because it was "not part of the daily work." (Id. at 156:11.)

• The three adjusters for whom she worked - Parsons, Billy Thomas, and Ray Kuykendall - treated her disrespectfully by being "short," "condescending," and "unprofessional." At deposition, Reeves could not articulate any specific examples in which Thomas acted condescendingly towards her, but she did reference one example as to Kuykendall and several examples relative to Parsons, as described herein.

• On March 11, 2011, when the other Claims Assistant, Kim Wright, was out of the office, Reeves was left as the only "secretary" responsible for answering phones. She complained that, on that day, no one offered to cover for her while she took lunch or went to the restroom. In the past, employees typically had "offered or gone above and beyond to try to help me." (Reeves Dep., Ex. 25.)

• On March 14, 2011, Parsons criticized Reeves verbally for having a loud voice. Parsons also asked her about a particular insured, became upset with her, and stated "Well, whatever, I will just have to do it myself."

• On March 24, 2011, Delk did not ask her to hand out paychecks to the other employees, a task he typically delegated to her on "paydays."

Instead, Delk permitted Parsons to handle this task on that particular day, at which point Reeves emailed Delk to complain. Reeves testified that Delk told Reeves something to the effect of, "Nowyou know what it feels like to have something taken away that you're responsible of [sic]." (Reeves Dep. at 166:1-3) However, at deposition, Reeves admitted that (1) she did not in fact have any job responsibilities taken away from her as a result of this single occurrence (id. at 166:14-16); and (2) this single occurrence "didn't interfere" with her ability to do her job (id. 164:13-18).⁷

• In general, Reeves' coworkers allegedly treated her differently when Delk was not around. However, Reeves believes that Delk did not direct them to mistreat her.

• On April 6, 2011, Delk was out of the office when a storm hit, causing numerous claims to be filed. Delk emailed Reeves and Wright, indicating that they would be assisting the adjusters that day to deal with the increased call volume. After Reeves offered to help Parsons, Parsons openly criticized her (verbally) and then accosted her separately, telling her that "you'll do what I tell you, when I tell you." (Reeves Dep. at 159:10-25.) Also, Reeves became offended when Parsons did not solicit input from her or assign her sufficient work that day;

...