Arnett v. Tuthill Corp., Fill-Rite Div.

849 F. Supp. 654, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13054, 1994 WL 108344
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana
DecidedMarch 30, 1994
DocketF92-205
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 849 F. Supp. 654 (Arnett v. Tuthill Corp., Fill-Rite Div.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnett v. Tuthill Corp., Fill-Rite Div., 849 F. Supp. 654, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13054, 1994 WL 108344 (N.D. Ind. 1994).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

COSBEY, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court 1 on Defendant’s, Tuthill Corporation, Fill-Rite Division’s (“Fill-Rite”), motion for partial summary judgment, filed January 18, 1994. Plaintiffs, Deborah Arnett’s, (“Arnett”) response was filed February 2, 1994 and Defendant’s reply was filed February 10, 1994. The record on summary judgment consists of Arnett’s affidavit, excerpts from Arnett’s deposition; Arnett’s college transcript; a section of the September 9, 1993, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette; a copy of the Tuthill Corporation Salaried Employee’s Handbook and excerpts from the depositions of various officers and employees of the Defendant.

On March 16, 1994 during a telephonic hearing the Court orally denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs Equal Pay Act Claim, 29 U.S.C. § 206 et. seq., but continued to take under advisement Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs ERISA claim. For the reasons stated below Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs ERISA claim is GRANTED.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Fill-Rite is a division of Tuthill Corporation that is engaged in the design and manufacture of fuel management systems at its facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. (Jenkins Dep. p. 4). In 1981 Fill-Rite created an *657 electronics manufacturing department at the Fill-Rite plant. (Burns Dep. p. 18). That department was headed up by Robert Burns (“Burns”). Id. Burns remained foreman of the electronics manufacturing department until 1985 or 1986 when Fill-Rite began manufacturing a complex credit card system. Id. at 19. At that time Burns determined he could not handle both the supervisory responsibilities and technological duties of his position. Id. Fill-Rite and Burns agreed that he would relinquish his supervisory or administrative duties and concentrate solely on his technological responsibilities. Id. at 20, 31. In 1986 Burns gave up his foreman title and in 1986 James Auman took over the role. (Auman Dep., p. 8).

By mid-1987 the primary product manufactured in the electronics department was a card-activated, fuel-control system called the “500 system.” Id. at 12; (Jenkins Dep., p. 73). During production of this product Fill-Rite discovered that the failure rate of certain circuit boards used in the system (“CPU boards”) was unusually high. (Auman Dep., p. 12). The faulty circuit boards were set aside, and by August 1990 the number of faulty boards had accumulated to almost 90. Id. at 13. This pile, commonly referred to in the electronics department as the “bone pile,” became a very costly expense to Fill-Rite because each board was worth approximately $500.00. Id.

In an effort to remedy this situation, on August 5, 1987, Fill-Rite hired Arnett as an electronics technician. (Auman Dep., p. 12; Arnett Dep. p. 15). Her primary responsibility was to troubleshoot or identify the problems in the faulty boards and then make the necessary repairs. (Auman Dep., p. 13). However, as her employment continued she began to assume other responsibilities as well. 2 (Arnett Affidavit). Arnett was initially hired as a part time employee. (Arnett Dep., p. 18-21). After two months she began to work as a probationary, full-time employee and finally in January of 1988, Arnett became a full-time, salaried employee. Id. One of the benefits of her newly acquired full-time status was health insurance. Id. at 105-106. This insurance coverage was provided at no cost to and extended to herself and immediate family (children and spouse). Id.

In November of 1989, Arnett was diagnosed as HIV positive. Id. at 67-78. She had contracted HIV from her husband, who also was HIV infected. Id. Arnett informed Len Wright, manager of manufacturing, and George Jenkins (“Jenkins”), president of Fill-Rite, of her HIV status immediately after being diagnosed. Id. at 70-72. It is unclear whether, at this time, she disclosed that her husband was also infected. Around that same time Arnett also told Burns, Id., and sometime during 1990 she also informed Auman. (Auman Dep., p. 35). Arnett chose to tell others in the electronics department that she was suffering from leukemia, however she did eventually disclose to a few other employees that she was HIV positive. (Ar-nett Dep. p. 67-68). Juanita Seabaugh, Fill-Rite’s accounts payable administrator also learned of Arnett’s HIV status early on, by virtue of her responsibility to process health insurance claim forms. (Seabaugh Dep., p. 15-16).

Arnett’s employment duties did not change after she informed Fill-Rite that she was HIV positive. In fact they remained the same until her termination in November 1991. (Arnett Dep., p. 73).

In October of 1990 Joseph Clemens (“Clemens”) replaced Len Wright as the manager of manufacturing. (Clemens Dep., p. 13, 14, 57). Arnett did not tell Clemens that she was HIV positive until early spring of 1991. Id. At that time she also told Clemens that her husband was infected with the virus. Id.

On one occasion Auman inquired whether Arnett’s children were also infected with the virus, and Arnett informed him that they were not. Id. at 118.

In April of 1991, Arnett suffered from a severe urinary tract infection. (Arnett Dep. p. 90-93). As a result Arnett missed a full month of work, and was restricted to half- *658 days for two months thereafter. Id. During her absence Auman approached Seabaugh and asked if Arnett was truly HIV positive. Seabaugh informed ■ Auman that she -could not discuss such information as it was confidential. (Seabaugh Dep. p., 18; Auman Dep., p. 89-40) Auman was also warned by Jenkins that such an inquiry was inappropriate and he should not do it again. Id.

Eventually, Arnett.received several phone calls from both Auman and Clemens, who complained about the length of her absence. (Arnett Dep. 92-94). Clemens also required her to come into the office to explain her lengthy absence. Id. They attributed the long recovery period to her HIV status, alleging that a person who was not HIV positive would have been able to recover much faster. Id.

Nevertheless, Arnett apparently returned to her regular work schedule and continued to work with no problem until November. During November Tuthill entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the Union employees, which required employees who wished to continue family health care coverage to contribute $6.00 a week. (Clemens Dep., p. 56). This contribution requirement was applicable not only to union employees but salaried employees as well. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Corning v. Lodgenet Interactive Corp.
896 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (M.D. Florida, 2012)
Ansick v. Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.
933 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Indiana, 1996)
Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.
648 N.E.2d 674 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
849 F. Supp. 654, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13054, 1994 WL 108344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnett-v-tuthill-corp-fill-rite-div-innd-1994.