Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01284/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01284-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Area Resources For Community and Human Services
Appellee
Rodrick LeGrand
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1284

___________

Rodrick LeGrand, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Area Resources for Community and *

Human Services, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 15, 2004

 Filed: January 20, 2005 

___________

Before RILEY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Rodrick LeGrand (LeGrand) appeals the district court’s1

 grant of summary

judgment in favor of Area Resources for Community and Human Services (ARCHS)

on LeGrand’s sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA),

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010-213.137. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

ARCHS, a non-profit organization, implemented the Sustainable Neighborhood

Initiative (Initiative), which sought to revitalize local communities through citizen

and neighborhood-driven planning. LeGrand worked for ARCHS as a neighborhood

facilitator, and he served the Covenant-Blu, Grand Center, and Vandeventer, Missouri

communities. As a neighborhood facilitator, LeGrand worked with residents and

community leaders to plan development of the community. LeGrand’s

responsibilities included organizing a Neighborhood Leadership Team, which

generated ideas to improve the neighborhood and provided direction to LeGrand to

facilitate such ideas.

LeGrand’s direct supervisors were Initiative Coordinators Lisa Potts (Potts)

and Lucille Walton (Walton). The Initiative’s program included a Personnel

Committee, which utilized community members to evaluate ARCHS’s employees’

performance. The Personnel Committee advised Potts and Walton regarding

employment matters, but Potts and Walton had the final authority to hire, fire, and

discipline ARCHS’s employees. 

Father Maurice Nutt’s (Father Nutt) parish was located within the CovenantBlu, Grand Center, and Vandeventer communities. Father Nutt was an ARCHS board

member and a co-chair of the Initiative. As an ARCHS board member, Father Nutt

consulted and advised Potts and Walton on neighborhood issues. However, Father

Nutt was not a member of the Personnel Committee, and he did not make any

decisions or any recommendations regarding employment matters.

LeGrand alleges Father Nutt made unwelcome sexual advances toward him on

three separate occasions. The first incident allegedly occurred on March 22, 2001,

when LeGrand visited Father Nutt’s church to give Father Nutt a community update.

After Father Nutt gave LeGrand a tour of the facilities and introduced LeGrand to

some of the church’s staff members, LeGrand claims Father Nutt asked LeGrand to

watch pornographic movies with him and “to jerk off with him” to relieve stress.

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-3-

LeGrand responded, “No, I’m not interested. I’m not gay. I’m married. I [don’t] get

down like that.” In April, LeGrand reported the incident to Potts and Walton, who

told LeGrand to document the incident in writing, which LeGrand did. A few weeks

later, Potts and Walton suggested LeGrand seek counseling through ARCHS’s

Employee Assistance Program (EAP). LeGrand met with an EAP counselor in May

2001. 

After the first incident, LeGrand tried to avoid Father Nutt. However, in

November, LeGrand encountered Father Nutt at the ARCHS office after Father Nutt

had a meeting with Potts and Walton. LeGrand contends Father Nutt (1) mentioned

the pornographic movies again; (2) suggested LeGrand would advance in the

company, if he watched “these flicks” and “jerk[ed Father Nutt’s] dick off”;

(3) “kissed [LeGrand] in the mouth”; (4) grabbed LeGrand’s buttocks; and

(5) “reached for [LeGrand’s] genitals.” LeGrand pushed Father Nutt in the chest and

said, “You motherfucker.” Father Nutt later admitted hugging and kissing LeGrand,

but Father Nutt believed the “peck on the lips” was “mutual.” Father Nutt also

admitted to “brush[ing LeGrand’s] crotch with the back of my hand [, . . . b]ecause

it seemed that [LeGrand] was stimulated by the hug.” The third incident allegedly

occurred in December, when Father Nutt briefly gripped LeGrand’s thigh while each

were seated at a table during a meeting at the ARCHS office. 

ARCHS maintains a sexual harassment policy, which is contained in its

employee handbook. When LeGrand was employed by ARCHS, he received a copy

of the employee handbook and was aware of the policy. The handbook’s “NoHarassment Policy” states an employee should complain to his immediate supervisor,

and if the employee is not satisfied with the supervisor’s response, the employee

should contact the Human Resources Manager. LeGrand did not contact the Human

Resources Manager regarding his allegations against Father Nutt. 

On December 21, LeGrand filed a sexual harassment charge against ARCHS

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After filing his

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-4-

EEOC charge, LeGrand visited an EAP counselor five times over the following six

months. In January 2002, LeGrand took medical leave from ARCHS. While

LeGrand was on medical leave, ARCHS eliminated all neighborhood facilitator

positions, including LeGrand’s position, due to a lack of funding. In August, ARCHS

offered LeGrand the opportunity to interview for the Community Development

Coordinator position, which LeGrand declined because he had accepted a position

with more pay at another organization. 

In February 2002, after the EEOC investigated LeGrand’s harassment charge,

ARCHS requested and received Father Nutt’s resignation from its Board of Directors.

ARCHS also disciplined both Potts and Walton for not following ARCHS’s “No

Harassment Policy.” 

LeGrand later sued ARCHS in federal court, claiming Father Nutt’s sexual

advances constituted quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a hostile work

environment. The district court ruled LeGrand’s quid pro quo sexual harassment

claim failed, because LeGrand did not establish he was subjected to tangible

employment action resulting from his refusal to submit to Father Nutt’s advances.

The district court also rejected LeGrand’s hostile work environment claim, because

(1) Father Nutt was not LeGrand’s supervisor; (2) Father Nutt was not LeGrand’s coworker; and (3) the harassment “was not so severe or pervasive as to alter a term,

condition, or privilege of LeGrand’s employment.”

On appeal, LeGrand challenges the district court’s conclusion that (1) Father

Nutt was not LeGrand’s supervisor, and (2) Father Nutt’s conduct was not so severe

or pervasive as to constitute actionable sexual harassment. LeGrand does not appeal

the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his quid pro quo sexual harassment

claim. 

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-5-

II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, 275 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2002). When considering

a motion for summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. Id. Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We analyze LeGrand’s hostile work environment claims

under both Title VII and the MHRA in the same manner. Weyers v. Lear Operations

Corp., 359 F.3d 1049, 1056 n.6 (8th Cir. 2004). 

In granting summary judgment to ARCHS, the district court determined Father

Nutt was neither LeGrand’s supervisor nor LeGrand’s co-worker. Because we

conclude LeGrand failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment

sexual harassment, we do not address whether Father Nutt was LeGrand’s supervisor

or co-worker.

To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment,

LeGrand must prove (1) he is a member of a protected group, (2) he was subjected to

unwelcome sexual harassment, (3) the harassment was based on sex, and (4) the

harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his employment. Tuggle v.

Mangan, 348 F.3d 714, 720 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300

F.3d 928, 933 (8th Cir. 2002)). Assuming LeGrand established the first three

elements, we will focus only on the fourth element. To meet his burden on the fourth

element, LeGrand “must demonstrate the unwelcome harassment was sufficiently

severe or pervasive as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment by

creating an objectively hostile or abusive environment.” Meriwether v. Caraustar

Packaging Co., 326 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir. 2003). 

“Sexual harassment ‘standards are demanding–to be actionable, conduct must

be extreme and not merely rude or unpleasant.’” Tuggle, 348 F.3d at 720 (quoting

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-6-

Alagna v. Smithville R-II Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2003)). “‘More than

a few isolated incidents are required,’ and the alleged harassment must be ‘so

intimidating, offensive, or hostile that it poisoned the work environment.’” Id.

(quoting Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 967 (8th Cir. 1999)). LeGrand

must prove his workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule,

and insult.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). We consider the

“totality of the circumstances” to determine whether a work environment is hostile

or abusive. Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 382 F.3d 816, 828 (8th Cir. 2004). We

look to a number of factors, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct;

its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive

utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work

performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. 

Compared to other cases in which the Supreme Court and our circuit have

found the harassing conduct did not constitute sexual harassment, we believe the

harassment alleged in this case did not create an actionable hostile work environment.

In Duncan, we determined the plaintiff failed to show the harassing conduct was

“sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment, a

failure that dooms [her] hostile work environment claim.” Duncan, 300 F.3d at 935.

In Duncan, we considered five harassing incidents: a proposition for a relationship;

improper touching of the plaintiff’s hand on multiple occasions; a request the plaintiff

sketch a sexually objectionable planter; the posting of a “Man Hater’s Club” poster;

and a request the plaintiff “type the He-Men Women Haters beliefs.” Id. at 933-34.

The alleged harasser also had in his office a child’s pacifier in the shape of a penis

and a computer screen saver with a picture of a naked woman. Id. at 931. While the

harassment made the plaintiff uncomfortable and was “boorish, chauvinistic, and

decidedly immature,” we held it did not meet the standard necessary to be actionable.

Id. at 935. Thus, in overturning a jury verdict and concluding the district court

improperly denied the defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law,

we held the plaintiff did not show a sufficiently hostile work environment. Id.

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-7-

 Following Duncan, we have found summary judgment proper in several cases,

due to the plaintiff’s failure to meet the fourth element of a hostile environment

sexual harassment claim. See, e.g., Tuggle, 348 F.3d at 714, 722 (holding while the

plaintiff “was clearly subjected to harassing conduct,” it was not “actionable conduct”

where a co-worker made a number of comments based on the plaintiff’s sex and

posted a photograph showing the plaintiff’s “clothed rear end”); Ottman v. City of

Independence, 341 F.3d 751, 760 (8th Cir. 2003) (concluding the district court erred

in finding a triable issue for the jury where the conduct consisted of belittling and

sexist remarks on almost a daily basis); Meriwether, 326 F.3d at 993 (holding sexual

harassment claim failed where a co-worker grabbed the plaintiff’s buttock and then

confronted her about it the next day); Alagna, 324 F.3d at 977-78, 980 (concluding

the co-worker’s conduct was inappropriate, but not sufficiently severe or pervasive

where it included calls to the plaintiff’s home, frequent visits to her office,

discussions about relationships (not including sexual details) with his wife and other

women, touching the plaintiff’s arm, saying he “loved” her and she was “very

special,” placing romance novels in her faculty mailbox, and invading her personal

space).

Viewing LeGrand’s claim in light of the demanding standard set by the

Supreme Court and by Duncan and its progeny, Father Nutt’s behavior did not rise

to the level of actionable hostile work environment sexual harassment. None of the

incidents was physically violent or overtly threatening. There can be no doubt Father

Nutt’s actions, admitted and alleged, ranged from crass to churlish and were

manifestly inappropriate; however, the three isolated incidents, which occurred over

a nine-month period, were not so severe or pervasive as to poison LeGrand’s work

environment. Therefore, we hold LeGrand failed to establish the existence of a trialworthy question of fact on his hostile work environment claim. 

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193 
-8-

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of ARCHS.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1284 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/20/2005 Entry ID: 1857193