IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0954 Filed September 27, 2017
LISA REMMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., and JULIE CARLSON, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell,
Judge.
Lisa Remmick appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
the defendants on her claims of disability discrimination, hostile work
environment, and retaliation. AFFIRMED.
Jill Zwagerman and Beatriz Mate-Kodjo of Newkirk Zwagerman, P.L.C.,
Des Moines, for appellant.
Michael A. Dee and Megan Erickson Moritz of Brown, Winick, Graves,
Gross, Baskerville & Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mahan, S.J.,* and Scott, S.J.*
*Senior judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2017). 2
SCOTT, Senior Judge.
Lisa Remmick, a former employee of Magellan Health, Inc., filed suit
against Magellan1 and her former supervisor, Julie Carlson, raising claims under
the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) based on Remmick’s mental health disability.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding
no genuine dispute of material fact on her claims of disability discrimination,
hostile work environment, and retaliation. Remmick now appeals. Finding no
error, we affirm the court’s grant of summary judgment.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
We start with an overview of the facts from the summary judgment record,
taken in the light most favorable to Remmick, the nonmoving party. See Roll v.
Newhall, 888 N.W.2d 422, 425 (Iowa 2016). At the age of sixteen, Remmick was
diagnosed with depression. Her current diagnoses include recurrent, severe
major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Remmick managed
her illness, did “all the daily living tasks that people do,” graduated from college
and graduate school, married, had two children, and worked as a social worker.
Remmick used medications to treat her illnesses. When her medications
became less effective, they were adjusted—known as a “med wash.”
In October 2001, Remmick began working for Magellan; she helped Iowa
adults and children on Medicaid find mental health professionals, hospitalization,
and treatment programs. She was promoted from regular case manager to
intensive case manager (ICM) in August 2008. Remmick described her ICM job
duties as “extremely more difficult” than the duties of a regular case manager:
1 Remmick also sued Magellan’s affiliate, Magellan HRSC, Inc. 3
“We were working with the sickest of the sick population, the homeless, the
extremely, extremely mentally ill, children in PMIC situations, which are
psychiatric mental institutes for children.”2
In June 2010, Carlson became Remmick’s supervisor, and Remmick told
Carlson she struggled with mental health issues. Carlson thought Remmick was
a good employee and assigned her to train new staff; Carlson “was impressed by
how [Remmick] worked with members and advocated for them.” According to
Carlson, Remmick received quarterly bonuses most of the time.3
2012 Medical Leave. In the fall of 2012, Remmick’s depression flared,
and she told Carlson about her suicidal ideation. A few weeks later, Remmick
told Carlson her doctor wanted her to take medical leave for treatments.
Magellan accommodated her October request for leave, and Remmick returned
to work on December 10, 2012.
Winter 2013. Upon Remmick’s return to work, she believed her co-
workers were dismissive and cold to her. She observed they no longer talked or
lunched with her. Remmick felt isolated.
Spring 2013. Remmick told Carlson she thought her co-workers were
treating her differently than they had treated another co-worker who had needed
personal leave—“[t]hey sent [the co-worker] care packages and cards, but they
didn’t send [Remmick] anything when she had been on leave.” In response,
2 This job requires the employee be a licensed social worker, a mental health counselor, or a registered nurse. 3 Remmick’s employment history shows she was ranked at “consistently meets” expectations in 2007 and 2008 (rank #3), improved in the following three years, 2009 to 2011 (3.6 to 3.8 to 3.9), and further improved to rank #4, “consistently exceeds” expectations, in 2012 and 2013 (4 to 4.2). Similarly, her salary improved each year. 4
Carlson told Remmick: “They know that she’s getting cancer treatments. [She] is
openly sharing her illness. It’s easy to support someone when you know exactly
what’s going on and you know how to support someone.” Carlson found it hard
to respond to Remmick’s complaint because Carlson believed Remmick’s co-
employees had called and sent flowers. Although Remmick testified the
atmosphere at work upon her return from this leave made her illness worse, she
did not contact human resources or ask Carlson to take any action.
Summer 2013. According to Remmick, she again spoke to Carlson in
June 2013 about her worsening depression and health. According to Carlson, in
June or July 2013, Remmick explained she would be doing a special therapy
over her lunch period, and Carlson knew Remmick had an intermittent FMLA
leave set up for the therapy. At the end of July 2013, Remmick’s therapist noted
the new therapy had worsened Remmick’s condition.
August 2013 Medical Leave. Approximately August 2, Remmick
received a bonus for her work production. Remmick was voluntarily hospitalized
for one night on Sunday, August 4, for suicidal ideation. Remmick stated she
had been having increased anxiety over the last month, was nauseous, and was
not eating well. She also told hospital employees there was not a precipitating
factor causing her feelings. The hospital’s doctor changed her medications and
discussed disability benefits with her.
Remmick tearfully talked to Carlson on Friday, August 9, “brainstorming
options.” Remmick told Carlson she did not think she could do her job anymore,
she was overwhelmed and stressed, and she wished she had taken the position
another employee had just filled. Remmick acknowledged: “[I]t’s really not an 5
option now because that position’s full.” Carlson remembers saying, “I’ve noticed
. . . you’re struggling and that you’re just not advocating for your clients like you
did a year ago.” When Remmick became defensive, Carlson recalled telling
Remmick her job was not in jeopardy.
During Remmick’s regular morning appointment with her psychiatrist on
Monday, August 12, she stated she felt only a little better than when she was
hospitalized. Her doctor noted:
She feels she does not function as well at work. Her boss pulled her aside and had a conversation with her about her lack of energy and ambition and caring for the clients the way she had previously. Nonetheless, this was not a work reprimand, it was not a written letter, and her boss assured her that she should not be worried about termination.
The doctor took Remmick off work “for the time being” for a med wash and
to wait for the new medicine regime to work, planning to see her the next week.
Remmick returned to work and had an emotional talk with Carlson about taking
another leave. According to Carlson, Remmick was crying and shaking.
Remmick told Carlson she was not eating or sleeping and was overwhelmed.
Remmick talked about how important her job was to her and her concern her co-
workers would be even more hostile to her if she took another leave when the
team was already “short-staffed.” Remmick recalled “it was a condition of me
getting out the door that day” “that I would need to stand before my co-workers
and share my illness.”
Carlson brought the first two co-workers into a private office to talk with
Remmick. Carlson stayed for that emotional conversation while Remmick shared
the details of her struggle with mental illness and her need for medical leave. 6
Remmick recalls she was crying and one co-worker in the first meeting asked her
very “prying” questions. The other co-worker gave Remmick a hug. Carlson
brought in the other two co-workers and then left for a personal training
appointment. Remmick again shared her illness with her co-workers. The co-
worker who worked Polk County with Remmick immediately became angry and
yelled at Remmick, stating Remmick’s medical leaves were her causing stress.
After these emotional conversations, Remmick left on leave. Remmick was
humiliated by being forced to disclose her private medical information to her co-
workers. Carlson admitted Remmick’s medical leave was not any business of
Remmick’s team members under Magellan’s policy.
While Remmick knew “her work would have to be reassigned while she
was on leave,” Carlson opted to assign Remmick to a new territory upon her
return to work. In a phone call with Carlson, Remmick learned of Carlson’s
decision. Remmick believed working a new territory “would be like the start of a
whole new job.”
September 2013—Notify Management and Management
Investigation. On September 3, Remmick met with her therapist, whose notes
state her psychiatrist would release her to work. The therapist’s notes also
discussed Remmick’s “occupational problems”:
[Remmick] spoke to [her] lawyer this morning, she needs to return to work on Friday, letter will be sent to workplace . . . . If she doesn’t and she uses up all her FMLA, she is at risk of being fired . . . . Went over what she can say if asked to meet with supervisor and bosses—what they need to know is in FMLA paperwork . . . . Additional concerns at work: . . . co-worker who is judgmental—she can look from her to [family pictures], can pray for her. .... 7
Additional Notes Regarding Goals and Objectives: Focused primarily on triggers at work. Plan: Meet in one week. Check in on work situation . . . .
Also on September 3, 2013, Remmick’s attorney e-mailed a letter to
Magellan alleging disability discrimination by (1) Remmick’s co-workers upon her
December 2012 return to work and (2) supervisor Carlson forcing Remmick to
disclose personal medical information before the August 2013 leave. Counsel
also complained about Carlson removing Remmick from Polk County, where she
had worked for twelve years:
[Remmick] was being reassigned to another area. This particular area was just abandoned by another employee who said it was too stressful and difficult. So, not only is she being assigned to a more stressful area, she will have lost all of her contacts [in Polk County] that she has established . . . . This will likely affect her productivity and her ability to bonus.
Noting Remmick would be back to work “by the end of the week,” counsel asked
Magellan to conduct an immediate investigation, return Remmick to her prior
position, and immediately and properly train “the other employees.”
Magellan immediately began an investigation. On Friday, September 6,
2013, Remmick returned to work for one day—the last day she worked at
Magellan. Remmick testified she returned “because I thought I was ready, and
[my doctor] obviously thought I was ready,” and Remmick admitted her fear of
losing her FMLA benefits and then being terminated “could have been part” of
the reason she returned. Carlson gave Remmick the more stressful territory,
which “felt like a punishment” to Remmick, so Remmick asked Carlson to return
her to the Polk County territory. According to Carlson, she told Remmick she
would think about it because Carlson first wanted to talk to another manager. 8
Near the end of the day, Carlson granted Remmick’s request. In response, the
co-working who would be sharing Polk County with Remmick slammed a Polk
County file on Remmick’s desk and glared at her. But Remmick acknowledges
there was no cut in her pay, no loss of benefits, and no change in her job duties.
Remmick attempted suicide over the weekend, and her doctor placed her
on medical leave on September 9, 2013. Magellan’s September 11, 2013 letter
to Remmick stated she had exhausted her FMLA leave—twelve weeks within a
twelve-month period—and noted she was “eligible for short-term disability (STD)
benefits.” Remmick’s health benefits would “remain intact” while she was
approved for STD benefits. Remmick called Carlson to find out if Magellan would
hold her job for her, and Carlson replied Magellan would. Magellan paid
Remmick STD benefits. On September 27, Remmick timely filed charges of
employment discrimination with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC).
October 2013—Magellan Investigation Completed. Magellan
disciplined Carlson on October 16, instituting a “performance improvement plan”
and issuing her a “final written warning.”4 Magellan required all employees of the
ICM team to attend sensitivity and diversity training on October 18, 2013. On
October 25, Magellan investigator Andrea Whitfield told Remmick that Magellan
had addressed her concerns. In this conversation, Whitfield asked if Remmick
had a potential return date. When Remmick replied she did not and would see
4 Magellan determined Carlson “demonstrated poor judgment regarding an employee’s medical/mental health and [leave of absence] situation . . . . [Y]our involvement in the matter was inappropriate and unacceptable and could potentially put the company at legal risk.” The “final written warning” stated Carlson had not applied “seasoned judgment” and had not fostered “a positive work environment for all direct reports.” 9
her doctor in three weeks, Whitfield asked whether there was any
accommodation for her condition that would allow her to work and offered to
send accommodation forms. Remmick knew her job was still open for her, but
she was unable to work.
November 2013—No Accommodations or Restrictions Would Allow
Remmick to Work. Whitfield’s November 6 letter recapped the conversation,
enclosed a blank workplace accommodation form, and concluded:
I wanted to acknowledge your statement that not all of your leave time was due to illness but some of the time off was due to not wanting to be in an uncomfortable work environment. As I conveyed to you . . . please be assured that Magellan took your concerns very seriously and Human Resources conducted a thorough investigation into each of [your concerns]. Appropriate steps were taken to address issues found. Again, upon your return to the workplace, Human Resources will be available to you should you need to raise any further issues.
Also on November 6, Remmick called Whitfield because she thought her job had
been posted online. Whitfield assured Remmick the posting was for a new
position and told her the accommodation form was in the mail.
On November 11, Remmick, who was seeing her psychiatrist the next
day, called Whitfield, and Whitfield explained if Remmick’s doctor did not release
her to return to work or if Remmick was released with restrictions, Remmick
“would need to get the paperwork completed.” On November 12, Remmick’s
psychiatrist asked Magellan for a copy of her job description, which Magellan
provided. On November 18, Remmick’s psychiatrist completed Magellan’s
workplace accommodation form, and Remmick signed it. In response to the
form’s question asking if Remmick’s condition limited her ability to perform any of
the essential functions of her job, Magellan was told: “Yes. Severity of symptoms 10
precludes her ability to tolerate the demands of sustained competitive
employment. She is struggling to meet daily needs.” As to workplace
restrictions, Magellan was told: “N/A—not currently able to work.” Similarly, the
response to “workplace accommodations that are being sought in order to
perform the essential functions of the job” was left blank.
December 2013. On December 3, Whitfield and Remmick discussed her
current leave of absence and potential return to work. Remmick confirmed her
doctor could not provide an estimated release-to-work date and told Whitfield she
had discussed long-term disability with her doctor and neither her doctor nor her
therapist would release her to return to Magellan. Whitfield’s December 10
confirming letter explained Whitfield needed to “have the most accurate and up to
date information possible about your need for leave and ability/intention to return
to your job at Magellan.” Whitfield asked Remmick to contact her by December
19, 2013, if Remmick had additional information.
Remmick met with her psychiatrist on December 11; those notes stated
Remmick was unable to work. Remmick applied for SSDI benefits, detailing her
inability to work.
January 2014. Whitfield’s January 20, 2014 letter to Remmick noted she
had been away from work since September 9, 2013, and stated: “Based on the
information you have provided to date,” including no new information after the
December 10 letter, “coupled with Magellan’s business and operational needs,
we can no longer hold your position for you.” “[Y]our STD coverage will expire
February 9, 2014. Consequently, we will terminate your employment with
Magellan effective February 9, 2014.” 11
Litigation. The ICRC found the actions of Remmick’s co-workers were
“rude, abrasive, unkind, and insensitive” but not sufficiently severe or pervasive
to be disability harassment. The ICRC found otherwise as to Carlson’s actions,
concluding her actions were subjectively and objectively unreasonable; however,
Magellan could “likely establish an affirmative defense.” On Remmick’s
retaliation claim, because her reassignment lasted less than one day, the ICRC
found she failed to prove she suffered an adverse employment action. The ICRC
issued a right to sue letter. Remmick filed a timely petition against Magellan and
Carlson in October 2014, and an amended petition on January 20, 2015.
In Remmick’s February 2016 deposition, she testified she is not able to
work currently and her doctor had not released her to work. The defendants
sought summary judgment in March 2016. At the motion hearing, Remmick’s
counsel agreed that from the day Remmick stopped working for Magellan to the
date of her deposition, i.e., September 6, 2014—February 11, 2016, Remmick
had “not been capable of working.” Counsel also stated Remmick had not been
released to work as of the April 11, 2016 hearing, but she is “getting closer.” In
May 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion. Remmick now appeals.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment for correction of
legal error. Goodpaster v. Schwan’s Home Serv. Inc., 849 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa
2014). Summary judgment should be granted when “the record reveals a conflict
only concerns the legal consequences of undisputed facts.” Jones v. Univ. of
Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127, 139-40 (Iowa 2013) (citation omitted). When reviewing
the district court’s grant of summary judgment, “we examine the record in the 12
light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” drawing “all legitimate inferences
the evidence bears in order to establish the existence of questions of fact.” Id.
Thus, “in deciding if a genuine issue of material fact exists, we resolve all
disputed facts and draw all inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” See Kern v.
Palmer Coll. of Chiropractic, 757 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Iowa 2008).
“To the extent [an] appeal involves questions of statutory interpretation,
we review for correction of errors at law.” State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688
(Iowa 2016) (citation omitted). The ICRA is construed “broadly to effectuate its
purposes.” Iowa Code § 216.18(1) (2013).
III. Disability Discrimination
The ICRA provides “it shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice” to
discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee
because of the . . . disability of such . . . employee, unless based upon the nature of the occupation. If a person with a disability is qualified to perform a particular occupation by reason of training or experience, the nature of that occupation shall not be the basis for exception to the unfair or discriminating practices prohibited by this subsection.
Id. § 216.6(1)(a). To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination
under the ICRA Remmick must prove: (1) she has a disability, (2) she was
qualified to perform the job either with or without an accommodation for her
disability, and (3) she suffered an adverse employment decision because of her
disability. See Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc. v. Blackford, 661 N.W.2d 515, 519
(Iowa 2003). We resolve this claim on the second element. 13
A. Qualified Employee
Under the second element, Remmick is required to show she is qualified
for the ICM position. See Goodpaster, 849 N.W.2d at 14 (citation omitted). Iowa
courts use “a two-step inquiry to determine whether an employee is qualified for
a position.” Id. In the first step, the fact finder determines “if the employee can
perform the essential functions of the position without an accommodation.” Id. If
so, the employee is qualified. Id. But where the employee cannot perform, the
fact finder moves on to the second step—“whether any reasonable
accommodation by the employer would enable [the plaintiff] to perform those
functions.” Id. at 16 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Under step two, if a
reasonable accommodation exists, the employee is qualified. Id. at 14. If no
reasonable accommodation allows the employee to perform the essential
functions, “the employee is not qualified for the position and cannot make a prima
facie case of disability discrimination.” Id.
In short, the disabled employee’s ability to perform the job’s essential
functions is a required element in a disability discrimination claim, i.e., “qualified
employee,” and Iowa courts evaluate the interrelationship of (1) the extent of the
employee’s disability and (2) the essential job functions.5 See id.
5 On appeal, Remmick contends there is a fact question as to whether she is a qualified employee because the disability leading to her inability to perform her job was caused by her co-workers’ treatment when she returned from her first leave and by Carlson requiring Remmick to explain her illness to her co-workers before her second leave. Remmick’s brief argues: “Magellan should not be able to find a loophole in the disability laws that require someone to be able to complete the essential functions of the job when the person cannot complete the essential functions of the job because of the violations of the disability laws.” During oral argument, Remmick’s counsel admitted to having “no authority” for this proposition. We agree with the district court’s resolution: Remmick’s status as a qualified employee “does not depend on the cause of [her] disability, but rather on the extent of 14
B. Qualified Without Accommodation
The fact finder conducts an “individualized inquiry” to determine whether
an employee “is qualified for a particular job, despite his or her disability.” Id. at
15 (citation omitted). Remmick argues she provided sufficient evidence she was
qualified by her “education, job experience, and success in that exact position”
and asserts “qualified” is not a high standard under the language, “by reason of
training or experience,” in the second sentence of section 216.6(1)(a).
We agree the factors to be considered include a plaintiff’s “requisite skill,
experience [and] education [for] the employment position,” which Remmick has.
See id. at 14. But Remmick cites no Iowa law supporting her contention the fact
finder’s “qualified employee” inquiry stops with those factors, and “we are not at
liberty to overturn precedent of our supreme court.” Figley v. W.S. Indus., 801
N.W.2d 602, 608 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). Iowa case law requires more of a
plaintiff: “This inquiry must consider [t]he nature and extent of a disability, the
needs of a particular job, and the impact of disability on a person’s ability to
perform that job.” Goodpaster, 849 N.W.2d at 14 (alteration in original) (citations
omitted); see Schlitzer v. Univ. of Iowa Hosps. & Clinics, 641 N.W.2d 525, 532
(Iowa 2002) (holding nurse “failed to show she was qualified” when a “disability
substantially limits her ability to lift and makes a clinic nurse’s job incompatible”
with her disability).
her disability.” August v. Offices Unlimited, Inc., 981 F.2d 576, 583-84 (1st Cir. 1992); see Simo v. Home Health & Hospice Care, 906 F. Supp. 714, 721 (D.N.H. 1995) (stating requirement “plaintiff be otherwise qualified actually may benefit a discriminatory employer [where] plaintiff’s disability resulted from the employer’s wrongful conduct, [but] potential for an incongruous result does not dispose of the statutory requirement [a] plaintiff be capable” of working “to state her claim”). 15
First, as to the nature and extent of Remmick’s disability, her second leave
started on August 12, 2013. Thereafter, on November 18, 2013, Remmick’s
treating psychiatrist found Remmick incapable of sustained competitive
employment and also found no workplace accommodations would enable
Remmick to do her job. In December 2013, Remmick and her doctor described
her inability to work in her application for SSDI benefits. When Magellan
terminated Remmick in February 2014, she had exhausted her STD benefits, she
had neither sought workplace accommodations nor provided a return-to-work
date after November 18, 2013, and she had not returned to work. Remmick
remained unable to work at any job in April 2016.
Second, as to the needs of Remmick’s particular job of managing ICM
cases, she generally was required to (1) regularly interact with co-workers,
patients, and providers, (2) utilize time management skills and organization skills,
and (3) understand and analyze selection criteria, policies, procedures, and
governmental regulations. Carlson explained ICMs work with members and
providers “to help them develop treatment plans that were robust and able to
really address whatever the issue was that was leading to hospitalizations or
placement disruptions.”
Third, as to the impact of Remmick’s disability on her ability to perform her
job’s essential functions, Remmick’s SSDI application explained her inability to
meet those functions: (1) I “[d]on’t want to be around others and my job requires
me to talk to people all day”; (2) I “[h]ave lost my skills or desire to help others—
every minute at work felt like an hour”; (3) I have “compassion fatigue”; (4) “I
can’t work, go in public, don’t want to see people”; (4) “My memory is awful—at 16
work you have tons of tasks to keep track of,” and I cannot “concentrate enough
to complete task”; and (5) I am too anxious to talk to people I know.
Based on the appropriate factors, we find no error in the district court’s
conclusion: “By her own admission, Ms. Remmick’s disability served as an
impediment to virtually every essential function of her job, thus rendering her
unqualified under the ICRA.”
C. Qualified with Accommodation
We turn to the “second inquiry—whether any reasonable accommodation
by [Magellan] would enable [her] to perform those functions.” Goodpaster, 849
N.W.2d at 16. Remmick has the burden of making “a facial showing that a
reasonable accommodation was possible.” Id. at 17. This showing requires
Remmick “to propose an accommodation and present testimony of its
feasibility.”6 Id.
1. Accommodation for Existing Position. Remmick contends she,
at least once, asked someone in human resources if she could work from home.
She testified: “I can unequivocally tell you with all positivity that I asked
someone—I can’t say who or at what point—if I could work from home and it was
not going to be a possibility.” While it is undisputed other ICM employees did
some work from home, Remmick has provided no explanation for the
inconsistency in her appellate claim she could have performed the essential
functions of her ICM job with a “work from home” accommodation and her
6 If Remmick shows “a reasonable accommodation is possible,” the burden shifts to Magellan to show either “it is not able to accommodate [Remmick’s] disability” or “the proposed accommodation is unreasonable.” Goodpaster, 849 N.W.2d at 16 (citation omitted). 17
testimony about the nature of her disability on December 19, 2013, shortly before
her February 9, 2014 termination:
A. . . . I could barely brush my teeth, function . . . . I had to at some point get staff assistance to be able to read mail and answer text messaging. I don’t know when I received these letters, when I read them, if I retained them, how I retained them, what they even meant to me at that point. I was sick. .... Q. . . . [I]n your own personal experience with this illness and as a mental health professional, if you’re unable to brush your teeth, answer mail, cleanse yourself, barely able to take care of your kids, that means you weren’t able to work either, doesn’t it? A. Not at Magellan. Not under those conditions. Q. What about anywhere else? I mean, can you do another job with the inability to perform those basic personal functions? Do you think? A. No. I was too ill.
Based on Remmick’s own testimony, she was so ill in December 2013 that
she could “barely” manage her basic needs. She expressed this fact again in her
application for SSDI benefits. At no point prior to her February 2014 termination
did Remmick submit an updated form to Magellan requesting accommodations.
She has provided no tangible record evidence her illness and capacity for work
improved before she was terminated, and she, in fact, continued to be incapable
of working at any job in April 2016. Thus, the record negates “an essential
element of her [discrimination] case—at least if she does not offer a sufficient
explanation.” Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 806 (1999)
(stating plaintiffs “cannot simply ignore the apparent contradiction that arises out
of the earlier SSDI total disability claim”). Remmick has not “offered a sufficient
explanation” as a matter of law; there is no disputed factual issue that prior to her
termination, Remmick was too ill to perform the essential functions of her ICM job
with a “work at home” accommodation. See id. at 807. 18
2. Accommodation of Different Position. Remmick claims she
asked Carlson in June or July 2013 about moving to a less stressful department,
faulting Carlson for her inaction: “Instead of looking into reassignment,
Supervisor Carlson told Ms. Remmick in the same conversation no other
positions were available.” In support, Remmick cites an excerpt from Carlson’s
deposition. But in that excerpt, Carlson stated they had a “brainstorming
session” on August 9 and specifically denied the discussion occurred sometime
in June or July 2013. According to Carlson, “we talked about her moving to
another department” and Remmick “brought up that, you know, ‘I wish I would
have done that, and it’s really not an option now because that position’s full.’”
Thus, the record cited by Remmick does not support the appellate proposition
advanced. Second, her psychiatrist’s notes from August 12 also show this
conversation likely occurred on August 9. Finally, according to Remmick:
Q. [Carlson] asked you if you’d be interested in a transfer to a less stressful position. Is that what you remember? A. Yes. I don’t even know if it was a question. It was just part of the discussion maybe that would be something that we should consider .... Q. And do you remember what your response was? A. That I did not want to transfer to a different position.
As to Remmick moving to another position at Magellan as an accommodation for
her disability, the record does not support her appellate claim. See Hedlund v.
Charlie Zook Motors, Inc., No. 13-CV-4058-DEO, 2014 WL 4794196, at *5-6
(N.D. Iowa Sept. 25, 2014) (recognizing plaintiff’s unsupported allegations that
accommodations may have allowed plaintiff to work are insufficient to create a
genuine issue of fact in disability discrimination claim). 19
In any event, Remmick does not cite to any evidence showing a different
position was available at Magellan, and Magellan “is not required to create a
vacancy or otherwise create a job” for her. Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530. “Even
if an employer fails to fully assist an employee in a request for reassignment, the
employee must still show a specific position was available that he or she could
have sought.” Blackford, 661 N.W.2d at 521. “Without this showing, an
employee cannot establish he or she is a qualified person.” Id. “It is not enough
for” Remmick “to make a general claim of the existence of the vacant position.”
Id. She “must specifically identify the position or positions that were available. It
is only in the context of a particular job that the court can evaluate [her]
qualifications to perform its essential functions.” Id. Here, Remmick failed to
show there was an open position at Magellan for which she was qualified.
We conclude Remmick “is not qualified” to perform the essential functions
of her job with or without accommodation and thus “cannot make a prima facie
case of disability discrimination.” Goodpaster, 849 N.W.2d at 14.
IV. Hostile Work Environment by Disability Harassment
Remmick also asserted an ICRA hostile-work-environment claim based on
disability harassment. While the Iowa Supreme Court has not specifically
addressed a hostile environment in the context of disability harassment, the
standard for proving such a claim has been set out as to sexual harassment,
racial harassment, and religious harassment. See Haskenhoff v. Homeland
Energy Sols., L.L.C., 897 N.W.2d 553, 571 (Iowa 2017) (stating, in context of
sexual harassment, federal law is instructive because “the ICRA hostile-work-
environment claim is modeled after its Title VII counterpart”); Simon Seeding & 20
Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm’n, 895 N.W.2d 446, 468 (Iowa 2017)
(racial harassment); Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Iowa
1990) (religious harassment). For a prima facie case, Remmick is required to
show: “(1) [she] belongs to a protected group; (2) [she] was subjected to
unwelcome [disability] harassment; (3) the harassment was based on [her
disability]; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of
employment.” Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 741, 746 (Iowa 2006)
(citation omitted). A fifth element requires Remmick to show “the employer knew
or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and
appropriate remedial action” as to “both supervisor and coworker harassment
under the ICRA.” Haskenhoff, 897 N.W.2d at 572. We resolve her co-employee
claim on the fourth element and her supervisor claim on the fifth element.
A. Non-supervisory Employees
We consider whether Remmick’s proffered evidence created a jury
question on whether a reasonable person could find she had been subjected to a
work environment so hostile that “a term, condition, or privilege of [her]
employment” was altered. Lynch v. City of Des Moines, 454 N.W.2d 827, 834
(Iowa 1990) (stating a “loss of a tangible job benefit is not required”); see Simon,
895 N.W.2d at 468 (stating harassment is “actionable [w]hen the workplace is
permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently
severe or pervasive” to “create an abusive working environment”). Remmick
must prove (1) she “subjectively perceived” her co-employees conduct as
abusive,” which we presume, and (2) “a reasonable person would also find the
conduct to be abusive or hostile”—the fighting issue here. Simon, 895 N.W.2d at 21
469 (citation omitted). In analyzing the objective determination, Iowa courts
consider:
(1) the frequency of the conduct, (2) the severity of the conduct, (3) whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or whether it was merely offensive, and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with [her] job performance. [The] circumstances must disclose that the conduct was severe enough to amount to an alteration of the terms or conditions of employment.
Id. at 469-70 (recognizing a “series of individual episodes of inappropriate
behavior eventually can amount to a hostile environment”). “Discriminatory
comments that are merely part of casual conversation, are accidental, or are
sporadic do not trigger . . . sanctions.” Vaughn, 459 N.W.2d at 633 (citation
omitted) (stating “mere utterance” of a racial epithet “does not affect the terms,
conditions or privileges of employment to a significant degree”). The fact finder
resolves whether the workplace conditions are “continuous, severe, and
pervasive enough” to amount to a violation of ICRA. Id. (concluding plaintiff
alleged sufficient facts showing harassment and “interpretation of this
constellation of events should be left to the finder of fact”).
We turn to the “constellation of events” under the “reasonable person”
objective test as to Remmick’s co-workers. Magellan specializes in providing
services for individuals with mental illnesses. Remmick’s co-workers are
licensed clinicians. Remmick’s co-workers treated her differently after her first
leave by not including her in lunches, breaks for cigarettes, and conversations.
She observed unfriendly looks and eye-rolling. These behaviors led to her
feeling isolated from her team members. One co-worker asked prying questions
when Remmick disclosed her mental illness as the reason for her second leave. 22
In the second meeting, another co-worker yelled at Remmick. Finally, Remmick
did not feel her team members welcomed her back warmly on September 6,
2014, and the co-worker who previously had yelled at her angrily slammed a file
down on her desk and glared at her.
Like the district court and the ICRC, we conclude the actions Remmick
describes are rude, unprofessional, and offensive, but even in the aggregate, the
actions are not so severe or pervasive as is necessary to meet the demanding
standard of “extreme conduct.” Remmick was not subject to unwelcome physical
touching or threats or name-calling. Her co-workers did not directly interfere with
her job duties. See Farmland Foods, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm’n,
672 N.W.2d 733, 744-45 (Iowa 2003) (holding “occasional unpleasant treatment”
was not “severe or pervasive, and did not permeate” the work environment with
“discriminatory intimidation, derision, and abuse” as a matter of law); Wright v.
Ross Holdings, LLC, No. 14-1106, 2015 WL 1848534, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr.
22, 2015) (stating demanding standard for hostile work environment “requires
extreme conduct rather than merely rude or unpleasant conduct” (citation
omitted)). We affirm on this issue.7
B. Supervisor Liability
The ICRC found Carlson’s behavior objectively harassing, and the district
court did not. But we assume, without deciding, Remmick sufficiently proved the
7 Remmick also asserts the district court erred in failing to consider the hostile instant messages about her sent between some of her co-workers and between Carlson and some of her co-workers as “objective evidence of a hostile work environment that validates [her] subjective belief of hostility.” First, her subjective belief is presumed and not at issue. Second, even if we consider the messages, which were unknown to Remmick, the co-workers’ actual conduct towards her is still only “occasional unpleasant treatment.” 23
first four elements of supervisor harassment. The question on appeal is only
whether Remmick raised a question of fact on her burden to prove Magellan
“failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.” Lynch, 454 N.W.2d at
834. The district court found summary judgment appropriate on this element; we
agree with the court’s apt analysis and affirm on this issue:
[A]n employer is only liable for hostile environment harassment if it knew or should have known of the alleged harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. Vaughn, 459 N.W.2d at 634. As pertaining to Ms. Carlson, Magellan did not know about her alleged conduct until Ms. Remmick’s attorney sent a letter to Magellan on September 3, 2013. Magellan promptly investigated . . . and imposed discipline in the form of a “Final Written Warning.” Magellan’s response is very similar to that found to be appropriate in Vaughn, in which the employer investigated following the complaint and imposed a written reprimand on the supervisor. Id. There is no indication that the warning imposed on Ms. Carlson did not have the effect of correcting the alleged misconduct. In fact, Ms. Remmick only worked at Magellan one day following her complaint and not at all following imposition of the disciplinary action.
V. Retaliation
Remmick asserts a fact question exists because “a reasonable jury could
conclude” Carlson’s act of moving her to another area upon her return to work in
2013 “was punishment.” Remmick contends the district court correctly cited the
elements for a retaliation claim but erred in finding she did not suffer retaliation.
The elements are (1) Remmick “engaged in protected activity,” (2) Magellan
“took adverse employment action against” Remmick, and (3) the adverse
employment action is causally linked to Remmick’s protected conduct. Estate of
Harris v. Papa John’s Pizza, 679 N.W.2d 673, 678 (Iowa 2004).
Remmick does not address the fact her new assignment was revoked
near the end of the day she returned to work. Similarly, she does not address 24
case law stating “minor changes in working conditions that only amount to an
inconvenience cannot support discrimination.” Farmland Foods, 672 N.W.2d at
742. We find no error in the district court’s conclusion Remmick failed to prove
she suffered an adverse employment action where: (1) Remmick’s share of Polk
County had to be covered in her absence and was reassigned while she was on
leave; (2) Polk County was returned to Remmick on the day she returned to
work; and (3) the minor and very temporary change in her caseload did not
impact her pay, class, job department, and work duties. See id. (“[I]nternal
transfers involving minor changes in working conditions and no reduction in pay
or benefits will not constitute an adverse employment action.” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
Remmick’s retaliation claim.
AFFIRMED.