Mahler v. First Dakota Title Ltd. P'ship

931 F.3d 799 (2019) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2019-07-31

civil; Title VII retaliation (§ 2000e-3), sex-based hostile work environment and sex discrimination (termination); summary judgment for employer affirmed by CA8 (discrimination claim held waived on appeal) (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization satisfied conceded
    Community Title hired Mahler in 2012 as vice president of one of the TRN umbrella companies.
  2. 9 Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment not no-evidence
    In February 2015, Anderson emailed Mahler some off-color jokes, explaining "Hopefully the following will not offend you."
  3. 9 Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment not no-evidence
    "The proper inquiry is whether the plaintiff indicated by [her] conduct that the alleged harassment was unwelcome."
  4. 9 Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment not no-evidence
    However, she responded to Anderson's email, "No offense taken and thank you I did get a good laugh out of it."
  5. 9 Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment not no-evidence
    After she was terminated, she texted a friend that she was not sexually harassed, only "fired for reporting it."
  6. 9 Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment not no-evidence
    Because her actions demonstrate that she did not personally experience offensive or unwelcome harassment, her claim fails.
  7. 9 Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment not no-evidence
    Even if the email were unwelcome harassment, this single incident is not severe enough to alter the conditions of her employment.
  8. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    In mid-May, Mahler reported sexual harassment to Rees on behalf of Archer.
  9. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    On June 15, Anderson terminated Mahler, replacing her with Dondelinger.
  10. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Assuming Mahler has established a prima facie case, she has not demonstrated pretext.
  11. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    First Dakota claims it terminated Mahler because she repeatedly micromanaged and interfered with other employees.
  12. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Mahler can prove this is pretextual by showing that it has no basis in fact or that a prohibited reason more likely motivated First Dakota to terminate her.
  13. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Multiple employees complained that Mahler micromanaged and interfered with their work.
  14. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Before her 2015 protected activity, Anderson gave Thoelke and Dondelinger permission to terminate Mahler for contacting the Register of Deeds and interfering with Dondelinger's job.
  15. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Mahler's history of engaging in protected conduct since 2014 without repercussion also supports First Dakota's proffered reason.
  16. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Because of the substantial evidence in the record supporting First Dakota's proffered reason, Mahler has failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to pretext.