Opinion
No. 5-869 / 05-0384
Filed January 19, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, John Fister, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals from the district court's dismissal of her suit alleging employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Walker of Sherinian Walker Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Brandon Adams, Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
The plaintiff-appellant, Belinda Solomon-Fink, appeals from the district court's dismissal, following a bench trial, of her petition alleging discrimination in employment based on her pregnancy. She contends the court erred in finding the discriminatory actions were justified by safety concerns and in finding there was an unconditional offer of employment. We affirm.
Background facts.
The appellant applied for a position with the defendant-appellee, Quad States Gauging Measurement, Inc. (Quad States), which is operated by Ralph Mentzer and his wife Maureen. She was seven months pregnant when she interviewed with Mr. Mentzer on April 13, 2000. He called her on April 25 and offered her the job, which she accepted. He told her about her probationary period and medical insurance and informed her the Quad States had a strict policy on attendance and tardiness.
On April 26, the appellant called Mrs. Mentzer, told her she could not start until at least May 10 because of her college final exams, and told her she was pregnant. Mrs. Mentzer asked if she could perform the job duties safely and she said she had no physical limitations. Mrs. Mentzer said she and Mr. Mentzer would have to discuss the appellant's working conditions and review the situation with their insurance agent, workers' compensation carrier, and the local Iowa Workforce agent. The appellant said if this were the case, she would have to talk to some people. She recounted her experience of pregnancy discrimination with a former employer.
On April 27 the appellant filed a discrimination complaint with the Cedar Falls Human Rights Commission (Commission), which was served on Mr. Mentzer that same day. He contacted the Commission and was told not to show the appellant any favoritism, but to treat her like any other employee. He therefore abandoned his inquiry whether he should make any changes in the workplace or in the appellant's working conditions to accommodate her. On Friday, May 5, Mr. Mentzer called the appellant to confirm the job still was hers if she wanted it. On Saturday, May 6 she called him and said she still wanted it. He confirmed her start date of May 15 by letter. He asked if she would dismiss the discrimination complaint so he would not have to spend the time to answer the twenty-page questionnaire. She told him she would dismiss the discrimination complaint the following Monday.
After discussions with Ms. Rewerts at the Commission on Monday, the appellant amended her complaint to include retaliation. She also revoked her acceptance of the job with Quad States in letters on May 9 and 10, claiming it was conditioned on dismissal of her complaint and she would be exposed to a hostile work environment if she accepted the job. In a letter on May 13, Mr. Mentzer tried to clarify the job offer was not conditioned on dropping the complaint and that there was no hostile work environment. The appellant also cited a math test required of all employees as a reason for refusing employment.
District court proceedings
The appellant filed suit, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Iowa Code chapter 216 (1999). Quad States denied the allegations and claimed failure to mitigate damages as one of its affirmative defenses. The court granted Quad States's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim because Quad States did not have enough employees to be covered by Title VII. The chapter 216 claim proceeded to trial to the court.
The district court recounted the appellant's stressful circumstances at the time of her application for the job at Quad States and her experience with discrimination based on pregnancy at a previous employer. It acknowledged Mr. Mentzer's concern to provide his employees a workplace free of hazards and his sensitivity to possible complications in pregnancy based on serious complications Mrs. Mentzer suffered. The court found:
With those backgrounds in mind, the shortest explanation for Plaintiff's discrimination complaint and this lawsuit is that Plaintiff mistakenly confused Mr. Mentzer's intention to provide her with the safest possible employment and place of employment with an intention to deny employment to her on account of her pregnancy. This was a mistake she was predisposed to make because of her experience at [her former employer].
. . . .
What happened in this case is that Defendant's good faith effort to comply with OSHA and ensure a safe working environment for Plaintiff was misinterpreted and misconstrued by Plaintiff on account of her prior experience at [her former employer]. The original job offer, which Plaintiff accepted, first on April 25 and again on May 6, had never been withdrawn. After Defendant was advised by the Cedar Falls Human Rights Commission that he should not make any efforts to treat Plaintiff more favorably than other employees on account of her pregnancy, he took that advice by confirming to her that the offer of employment originally made was still hers to accept and [his] asking her, after she had already been hired, if she would drop her complaint so he could avoid the paperwork was nothing more that a request and never a condition of employment. Plaintiff did not have to and chose not to withdraw her complaint but she also chose not to work for Defendant while the complaint was pending simply because it would make her feel uncomfortable.
There was no refusal to hire after the Mentzers learned that Plaintiff was pregnant and, even if there had been a refusal to hire, Plaintiff's unreasonable revocation of her acceptance of Defendant's unconditional offer of employment was a complete failure to mitigate whatever damages she would have suffered if Defendant had refused to hire her in the first instance. The damages she suffered were not caused by Defendant's refusal to hire. They were caused by her unwillingness to go to work for Defendant while her discrimination complaint was pending.
Claims on appeal
The appellant contends the district court erred (1) in holding Quad States's actions were justified by safety concerns and (2) in finding the job offer was unconditional, so the appellant did not mitigate damages.
Scope and standards of review
When reviewing the judgment of a district court after a bench trial in a law action, our review is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Hansen v. Seabee Corp., 688 N.W.2d 234, 237 (Iowa 2004). The district court's findings have the effect of a special verdict and are binding if supported by substantial evidence. Arnevik v. Univ. of Minn. Bd. of Regents, 642 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa 2002). Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion. Id. We construe the district court's findings broadly in favor of upholding the judgment. Equity Control Assocs., Ltd. v. Root, 638 N.W.2d 664, 670 (Iowa 2001). "If substantial evidentiary support exists, then it matters not that some of the evidence would support a contrary finding." Acuity Ins. v. Foreman, 684 N.W.2d 212, 220 (Iowa 2004); see IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 420 (Iowa 2001) ("`Ultimately, the question is not whether the evidence might support a different finding, but whether the evidence supports the findings actually made.'" (citation omitted)).
Discussion
Safety concerns.
The appellant contends the court "erred in holding the defendant's discriminatory actions were justified due to concerns of safety." She argues the initial offer of the job was withdrawn when Quad States learned she was pregnant. Mr. Mentzer testified the initial offer, which was accepted, was "put on hold" while they checked to see what Quad States needed to do to accommodate the appellant's pregnancy safely. The appellant argues that such "welfare-based" actions are discriminatory. See Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Parr, 227 N.W.2d 486, 496 (Iowa 1975). The Cedar Rapids schools had a policy requiring teachers to take leave after the fifth month of pregnancy. Our supreme court determined the rigid policy was too broad because no two pregnancies are alike. Id. The appellant also cites International Union, United Auto., Aerospace Agric. Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 201, 111 S. Ct. 1196, 1204, 113 L. Ed. 2d 158, 175 (1991), which held the company's fetal protection policy of excluding women capable of becoming pregnant from battery manufacturing positions involving exposure to lead was sex discrimination. The court found the company had shown no factual basis for believing women would be unable to perform the job duties safely and efficiently. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. at 207, 111 S. Ct. at 1208, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 178-79.
In both cases cited, the employer discriminated by excluding women — either from working during a portion of their pregnancies or from working in certain jobs. In the case before us, there is no evidence Quad States sought to exclude the appellant. Instead, Quad States wanted to find out how it could or should help the appellant in the position for which she was hired. We conclude such actions or concerns for her welfare were not discriminatory. Further, when advised not to treat the appellant any better than other employees, Quad States treated the appellant the same as its other employees. Even after she revoked her acceptance of the job, Quad States held the position open for several months and told her she could reapply if she wanted to. Substantial evidence supports the findings of the district court that Quad States did not discriminate against the appellant.
Mitigation of damages.
The district court found Quad States unconditionally offered the appellant the job, and that she first accepted, then revoked her acceptance. Therefore, it determined she did not mitigate any damages she would have suffered. The appellant contends the job offer was not unconditional, but rather was conditioned on withdrawal or dismissal of her pending discrimination claim. The evidence reveals Mr. Mentzer and the appellant discussed the discrimination complaint, that he wanted the Commission to pay him for his time in completing the twenty-page questionnaire, and that the appellant told him she was going to dismiss the complaint on May 9. The evidence does not, however, support the link between the job offer and dismissal of the complaint. Quad States offered the job without condition and the appellant accepted it without condition. The appellant's personal discomfort with working for Quad States while pursuing a discrimination claim against it does not make a hostile work environment. Substantial evidence supports the distinct court's findings the job offer was unconditional and the appellant failed to mitigate any damages.
Conclusion
Having determined substantial evidence supports the findings of the district court, we affirm the decision of the court in all respects.