Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00938/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00938-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendants have moved to strike several of Plaintiff’s factual assertions under

LRCiv 7.1(m)(3). Doc. 71 at 3, nn. 4, 5. There is no such local rule. Local Rule 7.2(m)(2)

makes clear that parties may object to factual assertions made in motions, but should not

move to strike them. Defendants’ motion to strike will therefore be denied, as will Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File Response to Objections. Doc. 73. The Court has considered the

parties’ objections to evidence in preparing this order. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Deanna Cook, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Scottsdale Insurance Company;

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0938-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 60. The matter is fully

briefed. Doc. 65-66 & 71-72. The Court has determined that oral argument would not

materially assist its ruling. The motion will be granted in part and denied in part.1

 

I. Background Facts.

Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (“SIC”) hired Plaintiff on March 20, 2003

as a Senior Claims Representative. Doc. 61, Defendants’ Statement of Facts (“DSOF”) ¶ 8.

In June 2005, Plaintiff was promoted to Senior Claims Specialist in SIC’s Technical

Resource Center (“TRC”) where her duties included providing technical advice to claims

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

representatives and managers regarding business insurance claims. DSOF ¶¶ 9-10. TRC

Senior Claims Manager Paul Balentine was her direct supervisor. DSOF ¶ 12. Balentine’s

direct supervisor was Jon Reamer, Director of Claims and operational leader of the Line of

Business department which included the Select Risk and Exposure unit and TRC. DSOF

¶¶ 13-14. The Claims Managers in Select Risk and Exposure were Gary Gray and Tom

Grimes, both of whom reported directly to Reamer and whose duties included supervising

the Claims Representatives. DSOF ¶¶ 16-17. 

Plaintiff served as a consultant to the Select Risk and Exposure unit regarding

construction defect claims. Plaintiff did not handle or resolve claims, did not have authority

to make decisions on a file or issue checks to insureds, and had no supervisory duties. DSOF

¶¶ 18-19. Generally, a claims representative provided coverage analysis and policy and

complaint review, and prepared the coverage letter explaining policy exclusions and

conditions. DSOF ¶ 20. The coverage letter was routed for preliminary review to a Claims

Manager such as Gray or Grimes and, if approved, was routed to Plaintiff for further review,

approval, and possible edits. DSOF ¶ 20. Plaintiff therefore might express an opinion that

conflicted with the opinions of other adjusters. DSOF ¶¶ 20-21. According to Plaintiff, she

explained her reasoning in the claim file notes. Doc. 66, Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts

(“PSOF”) ¶ 20. Claims Representatives and Claims Managers could seek advice from

Plaintiff during the claim review process. DSOF ¶¶ 22. Plaintiff reviewed more than 5,000

coverage letters to SIC’s insureds. DSOF ¶ 23. 

A. Coverage Dispute Incidents and Plaintiff’s Reassignment.

In February 2008, Plaintiff and Gray had a coverage disagreement that was referred

to Reamer for a final coverage decision. DSOF ¶¶ 37-38. In April 2008, Plaintiff sent an email to Balentine expressing concern that Gray wanted her to approve matters even when she

disagreed or believed the decision exposed the company financially. DSOF ¶ 40. Plaintiff

denies her complaints regarding coverage decisions continued throughout 2008. DSOF ¶ 41;

PSOF ¶ 41. Plaintiff’s 2008 annual performance evaluation showed an “Achieves Criteria”

rating, which was consistent with her previous year’s rating. DSOF ¶¶ 42-43. According

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

to Plaintiff, her problems began in 2009 when the number of coverage disputes being referred

to Reamer became unusually high. PSOF ¶¶ 37-38, 40-41. 

In early 2009, Reamer instructed the TRC, the Claims Manager, and the Claims

Representative to try and reach an “alignment around a position” before presenting the claim

to him for a final coverage decision. DSOF ¶ 46. According to Defendants, after the

“alignment meetings” were instituted, Reamer received about five claims disagreements

between Plaintiff and Gray or Grimes. DSOF ¶ 47. Plaintiff recalled having about ten

alignment meetings. PSOF ¶ 47. 

On March 3, 2009, during a meeting over a disagreement about coverage

interpretation, Gray and Plaintiff allegedly made pointed comments to each other about their

differing interpretations. DSOF ¶¶ 49-50. Plaintiff denies making pointed comments and

claims she was told during this meeting to align with improper denials of coverage because

of concerns about the company’s future financial stability. PSOF ¶ 49, Ex. 8, Cook Aff.

¶ 12. Reamer sent an e-mail following the meeting instructing Plaintiff to look at coverage

with a “critical and skeptical eye” and focus “on opportunities where we can manage our

expenses by fully and fairly evaluating whether or not a duty to defend truly exists.” Id.;

Doc. 61, Ex. D, Reamer Dep., Ex. 3 (e-mail dated 03/05/2009).

 In about April of 2009, Plaintiff asked to be moved out of the Select Risk and

Exposure unit so she would not have to work with Grimes or Gray. DSOF ¶¶ 51-52.

According to Plaintiff, she asked to be moved to another group or department, not to a

different unit within Reamer’s department. PSOF ¶ 51, Ex. 8, Cook Aff. ¶ 20; see Doc. 61,

Ex. E, Balentine Dep., Ex. 7 (e-mail dated 04/14/2009). 

Regarding a July 2009 disagreement, Grimes purportedly opined that “endorsement

is dead on to exclude coverage” and asked Plaintiff for “case law that holds differently.”

Plaintiff told Balentine that Grimes’ request “was another example of aggressive responses”

and mentioned she was again seeking “your help in removing me from this unfriendly

environment.” DSOF ¶ 54, Ex. E, Balentine Dep., Ex. 11 (e-mail dated 07/07/2009).

Balentine did not find Grimes’ request threatening or offensive. DSOF ¶ 55. 

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

According to Plaintiff, she was instructed in the summer of 2009 to stop including her

analysis in the claim file notes. PSOF ¶¶ 20, 123-24, 137. She also was instructed to stop

sending e-mails about coverage disputes. PSOF ¶ 141.

Effective September 28, 2009, Plaintiff was moved from construction defect claims

to general liability claims, allegedly consistent with her earlier request. DSOF ¶ 56. Plaintiff

no longer worked with Gray and Grimes. There was no change to Plaintiff’s title or

compensation as a result of her new assignment, but Plaintiff alleges that the position was

beneath her abilities and required little effort on her part. DSOF ¶ 57; Doc. 61-5 at 72.

B. Plaintiff’s Ethics Complaint.

On April 13 and 15, 2009, Plaintiff reported her concerns about SIC’s coverage

decisions to Defendant Nationwide’s Office of Ethics. DSOF ¶¶ 58-60. Plaintiff identified

70 to 100 claims of concern. PSOF ¶ 119; Doc 72, ¶ 119. In June and July 2009, Plaintiff

was contacted by Nationwide officials about her ethics complaint. DSOF ¶¶ 61-64. In

August 2009, LeRoy Johnston, Vice President of Ethics and Compliance, requested that

Plaintiff cooperate in the investigation and assured her retaliation was forbidden and names

would be kept as confidential as possible. DSOF ¶ 65. Plaintiff met with Nationwide’s

ethics investigator at an offsite location on August 21, 2009. DSOF ¶ 66. In November

2009, the investigator contacted Balentine and Reamer and did not reveal Plaintiff’s identity.

Balentine and Reamer allegedly learned about the ethics complaint during this contact.

DSOF ¶¶ 67-68.

C. The Appearance of a Conflict of Interest.

In July 2009, Reamer and Balentine learned that Plaintiff had retained an SIC outside

coverage attorney for a personal litigation matter without requesting permission. DSOF

¶¶ 69-70. Reamer and Balentine considered this a potential violation of the Conflict of

Interest policy because Plaintiff, as a Senior Claims Specialist, could recommend or suggest

that SIC obtain an opinion from coverage counsel. DSOF ¶¶ 70-72; PSOF ¶ 71. They

reported the matter to SIC’s Human Resources Department, which sought guidance from the

Office of Ethics. DSOF ¶¶ 72-73. The Company Conflict of Interest policy provided that

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

“[a]ny situation that may create, or even appear to create a conflict between personal interests

and the interests of Nationwide must be avoided,” and “gifts and favors from any company

or person who does business with . . . Nationwide may not be solicited.” DSOF ¶ 74. The

Office of Ethics concluded the situation created an appearance of a conflict of interest and

asked Plaintiff to request a letter from the attorney stating he was not providing her with

special discounts or favors. DSOF ¶¶ 73 & 75-76. On September 16, 2009, Balentine sent

Plaintiff an Interoffice Memo summarizing the situation and reminding her not to engage in

potential violations of the Conflict of Interest policy in the future. DSOF ¶ 77, Ex. E,

Balentine Dep., Ex. 17 (Interoffice Memo dated 09/16/2009). Balentine and Reamer were

not aware of Plaintiff’s ethics complaint when they raised concerns about Plaintiff’s

relationship with the attorney or provided Plaintiff with the Interoffice Memo. DSOF ¶ 78.

D. Plaintiff’s Separation From Defendants’ Employment. 

Plaintiff applied for a position at Lockton Companies, LLC, in Denver, Colorado.

Plaintiff’s mother resided in Colorado. DSOF ¶¶ 79-80. Plaintiff interviewed on

November 9, 2009, was offered a position on November 20, 2009, and accepted the position

on December 7, 2009. DSOF ¶¶ 82-83. The offer was for a $115,000 annual salary, a

$15,000 signing bonus, up to $10,000 relocation reimbursement expenses, an annual bonus

and other benefits. DSOF ¶ 84. Plaintiff’s salary at SIC at the time was $97,514.12. DSOF

¶ 85. Plaintiff submitted a termination notice to SIC on December 14, 2009, giving two

weeks’ notice and stating her last day would be December 25, 2009. DSOF ¶¶ 86-87, Ex. C,

Cook Dep., Ex. 30 (Employment Termination Notice). Defendants accepted Plaintiff’s

resignation on December 14, 2009. DSOF ¶ 88.

E. Lawsuit.

In 2010, SIC sued Plaintiff to recover confidential documents Plaintiff retained upon

her separation from employment. DSOF ¶¶ 89-90, 94, 96-97, Ex. C, Cook Dep., Ex. 6.

Plaintiff allegedly contacted opposing counsel in a lawsuit against SIC and provided counsel

with the files. DSOF ¶ 95. Plaintiff and SIC settled their lawsuit and stipulated to a

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

dismissal of all claims with prejudice, each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

The case was dismissed with prejudice. DSOF ¶ 98 & Ex. I.

F. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff has asserted claims against both Defendants for statutory and common law

wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (First and Third Claims), statutory and

common law retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy (Second and Fourth Claims),

and indemnification (Eighth Claim). Doc. 1, Am. Compl. Plaintiff’s other claims were

dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Docs. 58-59. 

II. Legal Standards.

A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the

district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which

it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is also appropriate against a party who “fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Only

disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit will preclude the entry of

summary judgment, and the disputed evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986). 

III. Discussion. 

A. Plaintiff’s Statutory Claims.

Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for wrongful and retaliatory discharge are based

on the Arizona Employment Protection Act (“AEPA”), A.R.S. §§ 23-1501(3)(c)(i) & (ii).

Under these sections, an employee has a claim against an employer for employment

termination if one or more of the following have occurred:

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in

retaliation for any of the following: 

(i) The refusal by the employee to commit an act or omission that would

violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state.

(ii) The disclosure by the employee in a reasonable manner that the

employee has information or a reasonable belief that the employer, or

an employee of the employer, has violated, is violating or will violate

the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state to either the

employer or a representative of the employer who the employee

reasonably believes is in a managerial or supervisory position and has

the authority to investigate the information provided by the employee

and to take action to prevent further violations of the Constitution of

Arizona or statutes of this state[.] 

A.R.S. § 23-1501(3)(c)(i) & (ii). 

Plaintiff contends that she was constructively discharged from SIC’s employment.

Constructive discharge under the AEPA is governed by A.R.S. § 23-1502, a statute never

mentioned by Defendants and cited only in passing by Plaintiff. Under that statute, an

employee may claim constructive discharge on the basis of “objectively difficult or

unpleasant working conditions to the extent that a reasonable employee would feel compelled

to resign,” but only if the employee gave the employer 15 days’ notice of the unpleasant

conditions and satisfied other requirements before resigning. See § 23-1502(A)(1) & (B).

If the employee failed to give the 15 days’ notice or satisfy the other requirements, she must

meet the heavier standard of showing “outrageous conduct by the employer” such as sexual

harassment or threats of violence. See § 23-1502(A)(2). The 15 days’ notice by the

employee is not required if the employer fails to provide its employees with a specific

employment notice set out in the statute. See § 23-1502(E).

Rather than addressing this statute, Defendants assert that the test for constructive

discharge is found in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 133 (2004), and

requires an employee to show working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person

would have felt compelled to resign. Doc. 60 at 12. The Court assumes from Defendants’

disregard of § 23-1502 that they either did not give the employment notice required by § 23-

1502(E), or they gave the notice and Plaintiff complied with her 15 day notice and other

requirements, either of which would entitle her to rely on AEPA’s lower standard for

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

constructive discharge. The Court cannot apply the higher standard under § 23-1502(A)(2)

without some showing that Defendants complied with the statute and Plaintiff did not, a

showing Defendants do not make in their summary judgment papers. In ruling on summary

judgment, the Court accordingly will ask whether Plaintiff has presented evidence to show

“objectively difficult or unpleasant working conditions to the extent that a reasonable

employee would feel compelled to resign.” § 23-1502(A)(1). 

Defendants concede for purposes of their summary judgment motion that Plaintiff

reasonably believed SIC was violating state law regarding its coverage decisions and

reported her concerns to Defendants. Doc. 60 at 11, n.10. Defendants argue that Plaintiff

was not constructively discharged, there was no causal connection between Plaintiff’s

protected activity and Defendants’ alleged retaliatory actions, and Defendants would have

taken the same actions regarding Plaintiff’s employment regardless of her protected activity.

1. Constructive Discharge.

Plaintiff cites the following series of incidents occurring in 2009. 

Balentine and Reamer required her to attend alignment meetings because of her

refusal to go along with alleged unlawful coverage denials, and threatened her job unless she

went along with the alignment requested. Balentine and Reamer prevented her from adding

notes to claim files or sending e-mails expressing her opinion about alleged wrongful

coverage decisions. Gray physically threatened her at an alignment meeting in 2009.

Doc. 65 at 4. 

Defendants argue that being required to attend meetings to discuss differing

interpretations is not an adverse employment action or an intolerable condition and Plaintiff’s

timeline of alleged harassing incidents undercuts her constructive discharge claim.

Specifically, Plaintiff’s disagreements with management over coverage claims began in

February 2008 and Plaintiff’s characterization of the 2008 disagreements as “normal

occurrences” and “typical disagreements” (see PSOF ¶¶ 37, 40-41) is unsupported argument.

Plaintiff’s attendance at alignment meetings in early 2009 and Reamer’s March 2009 e-mail

that she look at coverage with a “skeptical eye” similarly show events too remote from her

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

December 2009 employment termination. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s fear she might

lose her job was subjective and not supported by the evidence. Doc. 60 at 13; Doc. 71 at 5.

Plaintiff complains that in 2009 she was prevented from transferring away from

Balentine and Reamer and, when she was transferred, it was to a position beneath her

abilities. Doc. 65 at 5. Defendants argue that Plaintiff requested the transfer, she was

granted a new position in the TRC, she stayed at the same pay and title, and she no longer

worked with Gray and Grimes. Plaintiff’s annual performance ratings for 2008 and 2009

remained at “Achieved Criteria.” Doc. 60 at 12-13. 

Plaintiff contends that in 2009 she was denied requested vacation time based on

imposition of a new “first come first served” policy instead of the past practice of

determining priority based on seniority. Doc. 65 at 5. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

January 2009 e-mail to Balentine shows that when she requested time off she suggested using

seniority as a reasonable alternative to deciding vacations based on first come, first serve,

indicating her knowledge of the procedure. Doc. 71 at 5 (citing PSOF ¶ 129); Doc. 66, Ex.

1, Cook Dep. at 104-09. 

Plaintiff faults Balentine for granting her limited emergency leave compared to

another employee who received more leave. Doc. 65 at 5. Defendants argue that Plaintiff

requested emergency leave in September 2008 and April 2009 and it is undisputed Plaintiff

was the only employee under Balentine who was granted emergency leave in those years.

Doc. 71 at 6 (citing DSOF ¶ 36 & PSOF ¶ 36).

Plaintiff contends she received a written warning for the alleged appearance of a

conflict when no such appearance existed and other employees were not subject to such

discipline. Doc. 65 at 5. Defendants argue that Plaintiff received only an Interoffice Memo

regarding the appearance of a conflict and was not disciplined over the incident. Doc. 60 at

13; Doc. 71 at 6. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff applied for and accepted a higher paying position with

a company in Denver near where her mother lived. Plaintiff previously had been allowed to

work remotely from Colorado. Plaintiff was offered the position on November 20, 2009, but

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

did not accept until December 7, 2009 and allegedly offered to work for SIC until

December 25, 2009. Doc. 60 at 13; Doc. 71 at 6. Plaintiff contends that she looked

unsuccessfully for a position locally and by the summer of 2009 was experiencing physical

illness, including headaches, stomach aches, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, and panic attacks as

a result of her working conditions. Doc. 65 at 6; Doc. 66, PSOF ¶¶ 81, 86, 143, Ex. 1, Cook

Dep. at 221 & Ex. 8, Cook Aff. ¶ 19. Plaintiff claims “[m]y supervisor, Balentine, on a

number of occasions throughout 2009 told me that if I felt the working environment was too

hostile then I should terminate my employment as no other position or relief would be

forthcoming for me.” Doc. 65 at 6; Doc. 66, PSOF ¶¶ 86-87, Ex. 8, Cook Aff. ¶ 18. 

Whether working conditions are so intolerable as to justify a reasonable employee’s

decision to resign is generally a fact question for the jury. Wallace v. City of San Diego, 479

F.3d 616, 626 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406, 1411

(9th Cir. 1996)). While a single isolated incident is not sufficient to support a finding of

constructive discharge, the Ninth Circuit has upheld findings of constructive discharge in

circumstances where the plaintiff was subjected to incidents of differential treatment

occurring over a period of months or years. Id. An alleged improvement in working

conditions in the time period immediately preceding an employee’s resignation does not

necessarily preclude the conclusion that an employee was constructively discharged. Id. at

627-30. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a

question of fact on whether she was subjected to “objectively difficult or unpleasant working

conditions to the extent that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.” A.R.S.

§ 23-1502(A)(1). Plaintiff has presented evidence that the alignment meetings with Reamer,

Balentine, and Gray or Grimes were not “for the purpose of helping me to understand. They

were for the purpose of instructing me how to change my analysis and apply coverage in a

manner intended to deny coverage and save money.” Doc. 66, Ex. 1, Cook Dep. at 51-52,

92. She was called into these meetings and “placed in the predicament of being required to

apply coverage inconsistent with what I believed to be correct[.]” Id., Cook Dep. at 95.

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 10 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

Reamer “came up with the concept” of alignment meetings and Plaintiff was the “only TRC

associate” required to attend them. Doc. 66, Ex. 2, Balentine Dep. at 128-29 & Ex. 3,

Reamer Dep. at 38. At a meeting in 2009, “Gary Gray came out of his seat at me. I thought

he might strike me.” Doc. 66, Ex. 1, Cook Dep. at 52-53. Balentine told Plaintiff to stop

sending e-mails: “you need to stop this. It’s going to affect your work, which could lead to

other things.” Doc. 66, Ex. 2, Balentine Dep. at 129-30. Plaintiff’s job was threatened in

2009: “the instruction to me by both Reamer and Balentine was if I didn’t find a way to align

with their requests, that I could lose my job.” Doc. 66, Ex. 1, Cook Dep. at 59-61. Plaintiff

was not transferred to another position until some months after she made her request (Doc.

61, Ex. E, Balentine Dep., Ex. 7, Cook e-mail dated 04/14/2009), she sought to be transferred

to “a group or department where neither Balentine or Reamer were involved” (Doc. 66, Ex.

8, Cook Aff. ¶ 20), and yet she was transferred to a less demanding position where Balentine

and Reamer remained her supervisors (Doc. 61, Ex. E, Balentine Dep. at 113; Doc. 66, Ex.

1, Cook Dep. at 68).

Defendants clearly disagree with much of this evidence and all of Plaintiff’s

characterizations of the evidence. At the summary judgment stage, however, the Court “must

draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party and, where disputed issues

of material fact exist, assume the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving

party to be correct.” Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 439 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Doing

so, the Court concludes that alignment meetings designed to force an employee to adopt

positions contrary to her legal and ethical views, threats of termination, physical intimidation

(as allegedly committed by Gray), placing severe limitations on an employee’s ability to

record or communicate her views, and transferring the employee to a less demanding job

where she was still subject to the same supervisors, could be viewed as “objectively difficult

or unpleasant working conditions to the extent that a reasonable employee would feel

compelled to resign.” § 23-1502(A)(1). The Court accordingly will deny Defendants request

for summary judgment on the constructive discharge issue.

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 11 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

2. Causation.

In an AEPA retaliation case, the employee must prove the conduct at issue was

constitutionally protected and was a substantial or motivating factor in the employment

termination. If the plaintiff discharges this burden, the defendant can escape liability by

showing it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct.

Revit v. First Advantage Tax Consulting Serv., LLC, No. CV10-1653-PHX-DGC, 2012 WL

1230841 at *4-5 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2012). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s coverage complaints were not a substantial or

motivating factor in her alleged constructive discharge. Defendants argue that her complaints

regarding coverage decisions began in 2008, Plaintiff claims she was “demoted” to a new

assignment but had no change in title or pay, the conflict of interest performance warning

occurred in September 2009, and her 2008-2009 performance ratings remained positive.

Defendants contend these events and being instructed to meet with co-workers regarding

coverage disputes are not adverse employment actions.

For reasons explained above, the Court cannot agree with Defendants’ argument.

Plaintiff has presented evidence of a series events which, viewed in the light most favorable

to her position, could constitute “objectively difficult or unpleasant working conditions to

the extent that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.” A.R.S. § 23-

1502(A)(1). The events appear to have been directly related to her opinions of SIC’s claims

handling practices. The Court cannot conclude as a matter of undisputed fact that her

concerns about claims handling policies played no role in the events she claims caused her

constructive discharge. Nor can the Court conclude from the timing of events that Plaintiff’s

claim fails as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that “a specified time period

cannot be a mechanically applied criterion” in considering whether an employment decision

was retaliatory. Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 977 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s

alleged difficulties increased in 2009 as her concerns and expressions of concern about SIC’s

claims handling policies also increased. The Court cannot say that her expressions of

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 12 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

concern were so clearly removed in time from the events alleged to have constituted her

constructive discharge that summary judgment can be granted for Defendants. 

Defendants argue they would have taken the same action in the absence of the

protected conduct. They assert that they acted on Plaintiff’s request for reassignment, and

that the conflict of interest memorandum was issued after consultation with the company’s

Office of Ethics. But Plaintiff’s request for reassignment arose from the very difficulties

caused by her allegedly protected conduct, and she has alleged more than the conflict of

interest memorandum as the basis for her constructive discharge. A genuine issue of material

fact precludes summary judgment. 

B. Plaintiff’s Common Law Claims.

Defendants argue that there is no claim for common law wrongful or retaliatory

discharge in Arizona since the AEPA was enacted, and that Plaintiff’s common law claims

fail because they are based on the same conduct as her AEPA claims. Doc. 60 at 16.

Plaintiff appears to concede this point, stating that she will stand on her AEPA claims. Doc.

65 at 14. This Court previously has held that an Arizona plaintiff does not have a common

law claim for wrongful termination if the claim is based on the same conduct as the AEPA

claim. Revit, 2012 WL 1230841 at *8. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s common law claims (Third and Fourth Claims).

C. Plaintiff’s Indemnification Claim.

Plaintiff seeks indemnification of her expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in defending

against SIC’s previous lawsuit. Plaintiff cites SIC’s Amended and Restated Code of

Regulations as providing that the company shall indemnify any person who is or was a party

to a suit because that person is or was an employee of the company. Plaintiff contends the

previous lawsuit resulted in no adjudication of her liability and the parties’ settlement

agreement allowed her to retain her employment related claims. Doc. 65 at 15-16.

The parties’ settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal in the previous lawsuit

(Doc. 68 at ¶ 2), as well as the order dismissing the lawsuit entered by Judge Martone

(Doc. 61, Ex. I), expressly provided that each party would bear its own attorneys’ fees and

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 13 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

costs. Plaintiff has waived any claim to indemnification for her attorneys’ fees and costs

from that lawsuit, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is granted as to

Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth and Eighth Claims and denied as to Plaintiff’s First

and Second Claims. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Response to Objections Raised on

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 73) is denied as moot. 

3. The Court will set a final pretrial conference by separate order.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00938-DGC Document 77 Filed 12/06/12 Page 14 of 14