Sells v. City of White Bear Lake

John Sells, Plaintiff, v. City of White Bear Lake, Defendant.

Civil No. 14-4754 (DWF/JSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

June 10, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Alf E. Sivertson, Esq., and Marit M. Sivertson, Esq., Law Offices of Sivertson & Barrette, PA, counsel for Plaintiff.

Julie A Fleming-Wolfe, Esq., counsel for Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of White Bear Lake's (the "City") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

In the spring of 2000, Plaintiff John Sells ("Sells") was hired by the City as a Support Services Supervisor in the City's Police Department. (Doc. No. 33 ("Sivertson Aff.") ¶ 2, Ex. 1 ("Sather Dep.") at 8; id. ¶ 3, Ex. 2 ("Sells Dep.") at 10.) In this position, Sells was part of the Police Department's "administrative team" and remains in that position currently. (Doc. No. 10, Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) Mark Sather ("Sather") has been the City Manager throughout Sells' employment. (Id.)

As a Support Services Supervisor, Sells' primary duties include managing the Police Department's 911 Communications Center, supervising communications personnel (including non-union records technicians, union 911 dispatchers, room technicians, and community service officers),¹ administering the Computer Aided Dispatch ("CAD") system, and providing IT support for the Police Department. (Sells Dep. at 13, 24-25; Am. Compl. ¶ 12.)

Sells is not a union employee. (Sells Dep. at 145-146.) As a non-union employee, Sells is paid according to the City's Position Classification and Compensation Plan ("Compensation Plan"); his salary is dependent in part on both the City Council's approval and Sather's recommendations for annual increases in compensation.² (Sells Dep. at 147-49, 152-53.)

When Sells accepted the position with the City, he was aware that he would earn less money than at his previous job, but he claims that Chief Todd Miller ("Miller") told him that he could anticipate yearly increases in pay. (Sells Dep. 14, 17-18, 23.) In particular, Sells claims that Miller told him that he would request a pay increase for theposition during upcoming budget hearings, and that all employees received annual cost-of-living ("COLA") increases and step-raises. (Id. at 15.)³ Sells acknowledges that Miller also explained that "different employees in different classifications receive different step raises." (Id. at 15-16.) In fact, the City does not give COLA increases or step-raises to non-union employees. (Sather Dep. at 21-25.) Instead, any annual pay increase for a non-union position is based on market analysis, duties and responsibilities of the position, and performance. (Sather Dep. at 27-29, 37-38, 42-46.)

In December 2000, Sells received a salary increase of approximately $10,000 based on the "temporary adjustment of [the] position to include additional duties, pending formal reevaluation." (Doc. No. 28 ("Fleming-Wolfe Aff.") ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) Both parties go into great detail about the amounts and circumstances surrounding each of Sells' wage increases over the years. Because not all of the details are material, they are summarized briefly below.

In May 2002, Sells received a 3.75% wage increase retroactive to January 1, 2002, and a 2% prospective increase. (Fleming-Wolfe Aff. ¶ 5 Ex. 4 at D0591.) In December 2002, Sather authorized a 2003 salary adjustment for Sells, increasing his salary to $4,310.42 per month. (Id. at D0592.) In June 2004, Sells' job evaluation was completed and Sather authorized another pay increase retroactive to January 2004. (Id. at D0293.) In 2005 and 2006, Sells received additional increases. (Fleming-Wolfe Aff. ¶ 5, Ex. 4 atD0594-95.) In 2007, Lynne Bankes ("Bankes"), who had replaced Miller as Chief of Police, authorized a 3.15% increase for Sells. (Id. at D0596.) In 2008, Sells received a 3% performance increase. (Id. at D0597.) In 2009, Sells received a 3.25% increase and a .25% merit raise, and this was later adjusted upward for a 4% overall pay increase. (Id. at D0598-600.)

From 2003 through 2011, Sells received positive performance evaluations, either meeting or exceeding expectations. However, Sells did not receive a pay raise for two years, which he asserts was "ostensibly because of the financial collapse." (Doc. No. 31 at 8.) On January 13, 2012, Sells met with Bankes and explained that he should receive a merit pay increase for 2011. Sells testified that during this meeting Bankes indicated that Sells would be demoted from his position to a lower pay grade, and expressed her belief that Sells was overpaid in his position. (Sells Dep. at 65-66.) There is no evidence in the record that Sells was actually demoted.

On January 17, 2012, Sather convened a meeting with non-union employees, including Sells. Sells asserts that at this meeting Sather stated that non-union employees receive equitable compensation in comparison to union employees, receiving increases that are based on the outcome of bargaining units and similar step raises, along with merit pay when reviews exceed expectations. (Sells Dep. at 63-65.)

On April 3, 2012, Sather approved a 2% raise for Sells. (Fleming-Wolfe Aff. ¶10, Ex. 9.) On May 30, 2012, Sells prepared a detailed e-mail to Sather outlining problems within the department, including his salary history, which he claimed showed missed raises, as well as extra duties and hours imposed on him. (Sells Dep. at 70-85; Ex. 10 atD0443-81.) Sells provided comparison charts that he created to demonstrate the differences between his raises and those given female employees he supervised. (Fleming-Wolfe Aff. ¶ 11, Ex. 10 at D0449-64.) In November 2012, Sells provided more information about added duties, responsibilities, and hours, as well as his compensation history. (Id. ¶ 12, Ex. 11; Sells Dep. at 86-94.)

Bankes retired in 2013 and was replaced by Julie Swanson ("Swanson"). (Sells Dep. at 98.) In July 2013, Swanson and Captain Randy Johnson recommended salary increases for Sells on January 1, 2013, and again on July 1, 2013, bringing his annual salary to $67,291.21. (Fleming-Wolfe Aff. ¶ 13, Ex. 12 at D0565-575.)

On July 18, 2014, Sells received his performance evaluation covering the period from June 2013 to June 2014. (Id. ¶ 14, Ex. 13.) Sells did not receive any "exceeds expectations" ratings, and he noted his concern about this. (Id.) Sells testified that Swanson informed Sells that he would no longer be eligible for an "exceeds expectations" rating. (Sells Dep. at 102-107.) Swanson later confirmed that she did not pursue merit pay for Sells and recommended a 2% salary increase. (Sivertson Aff. ¶ 10, Ex. 9.)

Sells asserts that, excluding merit pay increases, he received fourteen raises during the relevant time period. (Fleming-Wolfe Aff. ¶ 15, Ex. 14.) Sells began at the hourly rate of $18.51/hour and ended at $32.67/hour. (Id.) Sells also submits evidence of female employees' pay history, for example: Angie Stewart (union dispatcher) received twenty-four raises from 2000 through 2015, starting at $13.94/hour and ending at $28.10/hour; Cindy Ristow (community services officer) received twenty-one raises from2000 through 2015, starting at $8.50/hour and ending at $22.35/hour; Naomi Clark (union dispatcher) received twenty raises from 2005 through 2015, starting at $15.80/hour and ending at $28.10/hour; Megan Christensen (non-union records technician) received eight raises from 2008 through 2015, starting at $16.60/hour and ending at $22.35/hour; Kyle Dreher (non-union records technician) received two raises from 2008 through 2009, starting at $16.44/hour and ending at $17.27/hour; and Denise Shaughnessy (room technician) received four raises from 2012 through 2014, starting at $16.210/hour and ending at $17.59/hour. (Id.)

In this case, Sells asserts a single claim for Title VII Pay Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Sells alleges that the female employees he supervised received more and larger raises than Sells, and that the differences constitute sex-based pay discrimination. (Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) Sells seeks past wage losses exceeding $212,000, as well as an adjustment of salary and benefits going forward. (Id. ¶ 24.)

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if the "movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Courts must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Weitz Co. v. Lloyd's of London, 574 F.3d 885, 892 (8th Cir. 2009). However, "[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed 'to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensivedetermination of every action.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Enter. Bank v. Magna Bank of Mo., 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).

II. Gender Wage Discrimination

Sells claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of his gender because the City paid him wages "at a rate less than the rate at which it paid wages to the female employees within the department who were supervised by Sells." (Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) The City argues that Sells' claim fails as a matter of law because he cannot establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination and, even if he could, Sells has not pointed to any evidence that any...