Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02485/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02485-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Ut1iced Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir:-uit 

MAR -11990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk NONA JAMERSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

ALASKAN FUR COMPANY, MYRON ) 

WANG, OSCAR DONAHUE and MARK ) 

BENTON, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 88-2485 

(D.C. No. 87-2134-S) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SEAY, District Judge.** 

This appeal is from an order of the district court finding 

that plaintiff Jamerson failed to meet her burden in showing that 

defendants violated Title VII, 42 u.s.c. § 2000(e), and denying 

all relief. Plaintiff appeals on the grounds that the district 

court erred in finding that defendant Alaskan had met its burden 

of proving that plaintiff was terminated for legitimate 

nondiscriminatory reasons and in concluding that the plaintiff 

failed to demonstrate that the reasons given for the termination 

were a mere pretext for discriminatory treatment. Plaintiff 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable Frank H. Seay, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 88-2485 Document: 01019965753 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 1 
further. appeals claiming _.that the . distr.ict court .erred in not 

addressing plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and in various 

evidentiary rulings. We affirm. 

Plaintiff Jamerson was employed as a probationary employee of 

defendant from January to May of 1985. During the course of her 

employment plaintiff was involved in several disputes with other 

employees of defendant. After each of the alleged incidents, 

members of defendant's management met with the employees involved 

and instructed them to attempt to work out their disagreements. 

At no time did plaintiff invoke the grievance procedures provided 

by the Company personnel policies or any in way allege to 

management that she was being harassed because she was a woman. 

In April of 1985 a male, who had been a permanent employee at 

another of defendant's stores, was transferred into the store 

involved in this litigation and assumed duties approximating those 

of the plaintiff. Plaintiff agreed to the sharing of 

responsibilities. The male employee was given a permanent 

employment contract on May 1, 1985, consistent with Company policy 

that gives permanent employees employment contracts concurrent 

with the defendant'a.£iscal .year. Plaintiff was_ involved in a 

disruptive altercation that resulted in her termination by 

defendant. 

In this suit plaintiff alleges that her termination was the 

result of discrimination on the basis of sex and that the work 

environment at defendant's place of business was hostile and 

constituted sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act. The district court determined that the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2485 Document: 01019965753 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 2 
' \ 

plaintiff .. established by_ a .preponderance .. of the .... evidence . the 

elements of a prima facie case of discrimination but that 

defendants met their burden under McDonnell-Doug l as Corp. v. 

Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), of showing a legitimate 

nondiscriminatory reason for discharging plaintiff when they 

produced evidence that the main reason for the discharge was 

plaintiff's inability to work amicably with her fellow employees. 

We agree with the district court that defendants met this burden 

and articulated a reasonable, nondiscriminatory basis for their 

decision to discharge plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to then carry 

her burden of showing that this legitimate reason for discharge 

was pretextual. Indeed the record is devoid of a cognizable 

showing of pretext. The district court did not err in applying 

the McDonnell-Douglas standard in refusing to analyze the 

allegations in this case under the standards of those cases 

evaluating sexual harassment in the workplace. Plaintiff in this 

case produced inadequate evidence that the alleged harassment was 

sexual harassment. See Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB ~ Vinson, 477 U.S. 

57, 65 (1987) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1604.ll(a) (1987) ("[u]nwelcome 

.... sexual advances,_. re.quests for. sexual favors, and_ other verbal or 

physical conduct of a sexual na t ure.")). Even under the more 

relaxed standards of Hicks~ Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406 

(10th Cir. 1987), plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the total 

of sexual and other sexually discriminatory harassment was so 

pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment. Under 

these circumstances, the district court applied the correct legal 

standard. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2485 Document: 01019965753 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 3 
• 

we _find - no abuse_of .. discretion in the evidentiary rulings 

regarding the request for a telephone deposition after the end of 

the discovery period and in the refusal of the district court to 

allow use of tape recorded proceedings from an administrative 

hearing. We AFFIRM. The request for sanctions against plaintiff 

is DENIED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2485 Document: 01019965753 Date Filed: 03/01/1990 Page: 4