Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01618/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01618-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marie T. Niesen
Appellant
Gale Norton
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1618

___________

Marie T. Niesen, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior, *

United States Department of Interior, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 12, 2005 

 Filed: November 28, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marie Niesen appeals from a final order entered in the District Court1

 for the

District of Minnesota insofar as it granted summary judgment in a Title VII retaliation

action in favor of her employer, the United States Department of the Interior.

Appellate Case: 05-1618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2005 Entry ID: 1979126
-2-

Niesen is employed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. On June 27, 2002, the

department manager, Barbara Milne, reassigned Niesen to a non-supervisory position.

Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that the reason for the reassignment was a

breakdown of the working relationship between Niesen and her immediate supervisor,

Rod Hartlieb. Niesen asserts that the reassignment was retaliation for participating

in protected activity. The district court held Niesen was unable to establish a prima

facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668,

93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973). 

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Putnam v. Unity Health

Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733 (8th Cir. 2003). The party moving for summary judgment

has the burden of proof, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d

265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986), to show there is no genuine issue of outcome

determinative material fact. See Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664, 666

(8th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).

Title VII retaliation claims are analyzed under the burden shifting framework

of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792. Plaintiff has the initial burden

to make a prima facie showing of retaliation. See id. at 510. To meet her burden,

plaintiff must show: (1) protected activity, (2) adverse employment action, and (3) a

causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action. See Cronquist

v. City of Minneapolis, 237 F.3d 920, 929 (8th Cir. 2001). First, the parties agree

Niesen engaged in protected activity. Second, she suffered an adverse employment

action because she lost her supervisory status. See Williams v. City of Kansas City,

223 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2000) (noting an “[a]dverse employment action is

exhibited by a material employment disadvantage, such as a decrease in salary,

benefits or responsibilities”); Miles v. Indiana, 387 F.3d 591, 600 (7th Cir. 2004) (“If

the jury only found retaliation in the reassignment to a position that lacked any

supervisory responsibility then providing equitable relief of supervisory responsibility

Appellate Case: 05-1618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2005 Entry ID: 1979126
-3-

would make [plaintiff] whole . . . .”). Third, Niesen cannot establish a causal

connection between the two.

Niesen offers a number of theories to establish such a causal connection, but

cannot make the necessary showing. She relies on two pieces of evidence: the

temporal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment

action, and Hartlieb’s deposition testimony. The temporal connection in this case is

insufficient, without more, to establish that Milne’s animosity and actions toward her

were anything other than a personality conflict or personal dislike of Niesen.

Hartlieb’s testimony demonstrates only that he believes Milne had retaliated against

him personally. 

Having carefully reviewed the briefs and the record, we find no reversible error

in the trial court's disposition of this matter. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed. 

See 8th Cir. R. 47(B).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1618 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2005 Entry ID: 1979126