Ironworker’s Discrimination Case Lands in 8th Circuit Court

A jury verdict in Northern Iowa District Court was a long time coming for eastern Iowa ironworker Edward D. Heaton. He filed a civil rights case with the court in June 2005 and waited more than a year while the cogs of justice turned. Despite a November 2006 jury verdict ordering the plaintiff in the case to pay more than $150,000, Heaton continues to wait as the case now heads to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case originally contained five complaints against the Weitz Co., an Iowa-based construction business. Three of the five complaints were removed in summary judgment by U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade. But Heaton’s claims of retaliation after refusing to tolerate discrimination based on national origin were heard before a jury.

Heaton, who is of Italian and Hispanic descent, became a journeyman ironworker after completing an apprenticeship program in 1992. Eight years later, Heaton moved from California to Iowa and became a member of Ironworkers Local 89 in Cedar Rapids. In October 2000, Heaton was sent by the union business agent to work at Weitz, where he started as a journeyman ironworker — an entry-level position in the trade. Roughly six months later, Heaton was promoted to foreman. In December 2002, he was promoted to general foreman.

Court documents state that Weitz Vice President Micheal Novy “handpicked Heaton to be a superintendent” and, on Jan. 6, 2003, Heaton became a superintendent ironworker. As one of three such superintendents, Heaton reported directly to Novy, who was based in Cedar Rapids.

Being promoted through the ranks is typically preferable to company and worker because the employer has some assurance of having the most highly skilled laborers supervising their construction jobs and the worker isn’t necessarily subject to frequent layoffs between jobs.

At the point of his promotion, Heaton had no disciplinary problems or derogatory evaluations from Weitz. Things began to change in spring 2003, according to court documents, when a Teamster superintendent directed other union members to go to Heaton and tell him that he was a “f—ing spic.” In addition, the same superintendent stated the only thing worse than having his daughter marry a black person — referred to with an expletive — was if she were to marry a “f—ing spic like Heaton.”

Heaton subsequently complained to Weitz personnel officials about the derogatory and racial comments. Heaton requested the superintendent stop the behavior and requested that his complaint be kept private from Novy, whom Heaton believed was a personal friend of the superintendent. The complaint, however, was handed directly to Novy for investigation.

A week later, Novy informed Heaton that the Teamsters superintendent had been fired. Court documents state that Novy told Heaton he hated to let the superintendent go because he was a long-time employee and Novy knew him personally.

The situation escalated when a different Weitz project manager referred to Heaton as a “spic” during a disagreement over union jurisdiction on a job site. Such disputes are common, according to court findings, and rarely result in disciplinary action. Nonetheless, the other project manager asked Novy to fire Heaton.

Heaton was called into Novy’s office, told to take his final two paychecks and that his employment was terminated. When Heaton questioned the disciplinary action, and asked whether he was being fired because of his earlier complaint against the superintendent, Novy rescinded the termination.

Things deteriorated further with crew members being pulled from jobs that Heaton supervised. In October 2003, Novy gave Heaton an ultimatum: He could either take a demotion to journeyman or be laid off. During that conversation, according to court documents, Novy told Heaton that “things are catching up to you.” Rather than be demoted to an entry-level position with little job security, Heaton took time off and waited for a superintendent or foreman job to become available. Although other superintendents were still working, Heaton was not recalled for a high-ranking position.

The following January, Heaton filed a complaint with the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission, claiming retaliation. A year later, in January 2005, two high-ranking ironworker positions opened at Weitz. Neither was offered to Heaton, so he filed a second complaint of retaliation with the same commission. He later contacted an attorney and began a formal civil rights case against Weitz.

The jury verdict handed down by the U.S. District Court for Northern Iowa totaled $137,070.44 and included lost wages of $47,537.44, lost health insurance benefits of $4,800, lost pension benefits of $11,413, and past emotional damages of $73,320. The jury also awarded $25,000 in punitive damages.

Weitz moved for a new trial, but federal Judge Reade concluded “the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s awards of emotional distress damages and punitive damages.” Weitz appealed.

The case will soon be before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefs are due in early winter. Oral arguments should be heard midwinter with a decision expected in early spring 2008. Individuals associated with the case declined comment, pending outcome of the appeal.