Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02455/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02455-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2455

___________

Jerry Yeager, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

City Water and Light Plant of *

Jonesboro, Arkansas, * 

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 17, 2006

Filed: June 30, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

As Jerry Yeager drove to his job at the City Water and Light Plant of

Jonesboro, Arkansas, co-worker Carolyn Schwartz pulled up behind Yeager at a stop

light. Yeager left his vehicle, reached in Schwartz’s partially open window, and

pinched the startled Schwartz on her breast. Schwartz complained about Yeager’s

inappropriate conduct to Yeager’s supervisor, Ron Hannah, and then to Hannah’s

supervisor, Larry Thompson. When confronted with the complaint, Yeager smiled

and said he accidentally pinched Schwartz on the breast. He was forced to resign for

violating City Water and Light’s sex harassment policy. He brought this action

Appellate Case: 05-2455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063029
1

The HONORABLE J. LEON HOLMES, Chief Judge of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

alleging reverse gender discrimination and now appeals the district court’s1

 grant of

summary judgment dismissing that claim. We affirm.

Yeager’s principal argument in the district court and on appeal is that summary

judgment was improper because he presented sufficient evidence showing that his

former employer “meted out more lenient treatment” to a similarly situated employee

who was not in the protected class, namely, Carolyn Schwartz. Smith v. Allen Health

Systems, Inc., 302 F.3d 827, 835 (8th Cir. 2002). In response to City Water and

Light’s motion for summary judgment, Yeager submitted employee affidavits

averring that Schwartz openly and frequently engaged in conduct violating City

Water and Light’s sex harassment policy, yet Schwartz was never disciplined or even

reprimanded for her improper conduct, whereas Yeager was terminated for a single

incident of sexually offensive misconduct. 

The district court rejected this argument, concluding that Yeager did not prove

pretext because he and Schwartz were not similarly situated. Specifically, Yeager

admitted the misconduct that prompted an immediate complaint by Schwartz, whereas

Schwartz denied the stale accusations of sexually offensive conduct first raised by

employees who were protesting Yeager’s termination. Reviewing the district court’s

grant of summary judgment de novo, we agree. An employer that promulgates a sex

harassment policy may reasonably distinguish between sexually oriented conduct that

elicits a complaint from an offended co-worker, and arguably comparable conduct

that is nonetheless tolerated by co-workers without complaint. See Morrow v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 152 F.3d 559, 562-63 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, both the absence of

contemporaneous complaints against Schwartz, and the fact that Yeager admitted his

misconduct, justified City Water and Light in treating these two employees as not

similarly situated from the standpoint of compliance with its sex harassment policy.

Appellate Case: 05-2455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063029
-3-

In these circumstances, Yeager’s claim of reverse discrimination was properly

dismissed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellee’s motion to strike is

denied as moot.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2455 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063029