Nora L. Fehr, Donald R. Aubry, Dale L. David P. Cranfill, Jr. In this action, plaintiff claims that defendant subjected her to disparate treatment based on her gender, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of Title VII , 42 U. Plaintiff also brings state law claims alleging outrage, assault, and battery. The case is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment Doc.
For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is denied. The following facts are either uncontroverted or based on evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Immaterial facts and facts not properly supported in the record are omitted. Defendant is an interstate carrier of general commodity, less-than-truck-load freight.
On August 8, , defendant hired plaintiff's husband, Danny Stapp, as a "road driver" to transport freight between defendant's various terminals. On May 18, , defendant hired plaintiff as a road driver. Since that time, plaintiff and her husband have worked as a team and jointly operated a sleeper cab. The bulk of the facts dealing with plaintiff's disparate treatment claim concern her inability to gain equal access to toilet and shower facilities at defendant's various terminals and service centers.
According to defendant, separate restroom facilities are provided for males and females at each of these terminals. On-site shower facilities are available to both males and females at unisex facilities at the Oakland, Portland, Denver, and Salt Lake City terminals. And at the Kansas City terminal, there are separate shower facilities for both male and female employees. Despite this apparent equality in the availability of facilities, plaintiff claims that she faced the following disparate treatment while using or attempting to use defendant's facilities:.
Plaintiff also alleges the following incidents of disparate treatment based on denial of mechanical assistance because she was a woman:. Plaintiff claims that the preceding facts also support her hostile work environment claim. To further support this claim, plaintiff presents the following additional facts:. Besides the facts stated above, plaintiff relies on the following incidents to support her claim that she was retaliated against for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and writing a letter to defendant's Kansas City manager concerning union matters and the alleged hostile work environment in which she worked:.
