Opinion ID: 2633397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the district court err in granting the Simplot Company's motion for summary judgment?

Text: Frazier's complaint is based upon the Idaho Human Rights Act, Idaho Code §§ 67-5901 et seq. She has not alleged any claim under federal law. Frazier argues on appeal that the district erred in dismissing three of her claims for relief: gender discrimination/disparate treatment, hostile work place environment, and retaliation.
In her complaint, Frazier alleged that while employed by the Simplot Company she applied for several positions for which she was qualified and these positions were ultimately filled with less qualified male employees. In her deposition, she was asked about this allegation and she described several incidents when she applied for a position and the job was given to a male. She testified that the last such time was in 1985, almost twelve years before she filed her complaint. In her affidavit, she also stated that shortly after she was transferred to the parts room in 1989, several maintenance jobs became available; that she was told she could not qualify for the jobs because of an injury she suffered in 1988; and that the jobs were given to men with more disabling injuries. Again, however, the period shortly after she started working in the parts room in 1989 would be more than two years before August 28, 1997, the date she filed her complaint. On appeal, Frazier argues that she was subjected to gender discrimination when in 1996 she applied for a timekeeper's job, and it was awarded to another woman. For a factual issue to be material on a motion for summary judgment, it must be placed in dispute by the pleadings. Bennett v. Bliss, 103 Idaho 358, 647 P.2d 814 (Ct.App. 1982). In her complaint, Frazier alleged that the Simplot Company discriminated against her on the basis of her gender when it denied her positions for which she had applied and was qualified. She identified her claims of gender discrimination as being those instances in which less qualified male employees were awarded the position instead of her. By her testimony, all of those instances occurred during the period from 1978 through 1989. The incident in 1996, when she was denied the timekeeper position and it was awarded to another woman, was not one of the claims alleged in Frazier's complaint because it was not an instance in which Frazier was denied a job that was awarded to a less qualified male. The refusal to award Frazier the timekeeping position in 1996 would be a cause of action that is separate and distinct from the claims alleged in her complaint. Cook v. Dep't of Transp., 133 Idaho 288, 985 P.2d 1150 (1999). In the Cook case, the Department of Transportation announced two openings for a senior technician, one in Idaho Falls and one in Rigby. Cook, who was a transportation technician with the Department, applied for both positions. The Rigby position was given to a male employee and the Idaho Falls position was not filled. Cook was the only female who applied for the Idaho Falls position. Cook filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that she was discriminated against based upon her gender when the Department decided to close the opening in Idaho Falls without filling it. The EEOC determined that no discrimination based upon gender had occurred and dismissed the complaint. Cook later filed an action in district court alleging that she was the victim of gender discrimination when the Idaho Falls position was closed. She later amended her complaint to add a claim of gender discrimination concerning the filling of the Rigby position. Upon the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, the district court dismissed the cause of action alleging discrimination regarding the filling of the Rigby position because Cook had not included that claim in her EEOC complaint. On appeal, this Court upheld that dismissal. If a plaintiff suing under Title VII alleges a claim that was not submitted in the plaintiff's original EEOC complaint, that claim must be dismissed unless it was like or reasonably related to the allegations in the EEOC charge. This Court held that Cook's allegation of gender discrimination in filling the Rigby position was different from her claim of gender discrimination in failing to fill the Idaho Falls position. They were two separate claims. When the gender discrimination is alleged to have created a hostile work place environment, all of the instances of wrongful conduct combine together to constitute one cause of action. Paterson v. State, 128 Idaho 494, 915 P.2d 724 (1996). In order to show that a work environment is sufficiently hostile, a plaintiff must show the occurrence of numerous improper acts which establish a pattern of conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. Id. The creation of the overall hostile work environment is the prohibited act, not the individual incidents which comprise the hostile work environment cause of action. Id. However, when, as here, the gender discrimination is alleged to be disparate treatment in denying the plaintiff a job based upon her gender, one such instance constitutes a cause of action. Bowles v. Keating, 100 Idaho 808, 606 P.2d 458 (1979). Thus, under the facts of this case the denial of the timekeeping job to Frazier in 1996 would be a separate cause of action from the earlier denials of jobs that are alleged in her complaint. The causes of action that were alleged in the complaint all occurred more than two years before the complaint was filed. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing her claim for sexual discrimination/disparate treatment.
One of the elements that Frazier must prove in order to establish a claim for hostile work environment is that she was subject to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Fowler v. Kootenai County, 128 Idaho 740, 918 P.2d 1185 (1996). Considering Frazier's affidavit and deposition testimony, she presented sworn testimony that she was the victim of such conduct occurring within two years of the date she filed her complaint. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing this claim based upon the statute of limitations.
Frazier alleged in her complaint that she was the victim of reprisals and retaliation for complaining and bringing to the attention violations of J.R. Simplot's sex discrimination policy and other anti-discrimination laws. The issue is whether there is evidence in the record of any such conduct occurring within the two-year period preceding the filing of this action. Frazier's testimony about reprisals centered primarily upon the conduct of Pearson before she began working in the parts room. However, she also presented evidence of one event occurring within two years before she filed her complaint. When the Simplot Company decided to outsource the parts room, Frazier applied for a job as a timekeeper. Frazier testified that she was qualified for that position, but it was awarded to another. Before the position was awarded, Frazier had discussions with the Human Resources Manager for the Simplot Company. This was the same person to whom Frazier said she had complained to no avail about Pearson's conduct. The Human Resources Manager had told Frazier that in order to receive a severance package from the Simplot Company, she would have to waive any claims she may have for gender discrimination against the Simplot Company. Frazier responded by telling the Human Resources Manager that she would sue the Simplot Company unless the Company gave her a severance package without having to waive her claims for gender discrimination. According to Frazier, the Human Resources Manager offered Frazier a job Frazier was physically unable to perform, due to the injury she suffered in 1988. Construing the facts liberally in favor of Frazier, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the failure to offer Frazier the timekeeper job could be construed as an instance of retaliation for her prior complaints about gender discrimination. Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing the claim for retaliation.