JESSICA LORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. BANK, NA, 

Defendant. 

PAPAK, J. 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 3:16-cv-0395-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Jessica Lord brings this employment discrimination action against defendant 

U.S. Bank, asse1ting state law claims for retaliation and gender discrimination. Plaintiff claims 

that Defendant unfairly disciplined her and tenninated her because she refused a dinner invitation 

from a supervisor. 

Defendant now moves for summary judgment. For the following reasons, I grant the 

motion for summmy judgment. 

BACKGROUND 

In the summer of2012, Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a pmt-time teller at its branch 

in Argay Square, Portland. About a year later, Plaintiff transferred to Defendant's branch on 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. (the MLK Branch). 

Page -1- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 15
In Defendant's January 2014 perfo1mance review of Plaintiff's work for the year 2013, 

which covered her time at both the Argay Park and MLK Branches, Plaintiff received an overall 

rating of "needs improvement," which is the second lowest possible rating. Def. Mot., Ex. 5, 

ECF No. 20-5. As to specific duties, Plaintiff received the lowest possible rating, "not effective," 

for refenals, i.e., referring bank customers to use other services. (All branch tellers "have the 

same quarterly and annual goals for refenals and their perfo1mance in respect to refenals is 

evaluated against a standard scale." Williams Deel. if 5, ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff received the 

second lowest rating for balancing and for cash drawer differences. The manager's comment 

section1 of the performance review states, "Overall [Plaintiff] had a great year in customer 

service, but needs to make some improvements in ... refenals, balancing, attendance." Def. 

Mot., Ex. 5, at 5, ECF No. 20-5. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that the perf01mance 

review for 2013 was a "fair assessment." Def. Mot., Ex. 1, at 52, ECF No. 20-1 (Lord Depo.). 

On March 1, 2014, Plaintiff received a merit pay raise. 

On June 1, 2014, Nicholas Domine began working at the MLK Branch as a sales and 

service manager, or SSM. Domine supervised Plaintiff.2 Plaintiff testified at her deposition that 

around the first week of July 2014, she was talking to Domine 

about what I was going to do that weekend, or whatever day it was coming up. I 

told him that I didn't have plans, that I was really bummed out because I was 

blown off for my bhthday [June 1 O] and that these people I had plans with ended 

up bailing, but I hung out with my mom and that was kind of lame. And he had 

asked ifI wanted to go out to dinner and grab a drink, to which I was kind of like, 

1

When the 2014 perfm:mance review was issued, Corie Spriggs was branch manager at the MLK 

Branch. Def. Mot., Ex. 5, at 6, ECF No. 20-5. 

2

Plaintiff alleges that Domine was temporary acting manager at this time. Lord Deel. if 5, ECF 

No. 27. I credit Defendant's evidence, however, that Domine was "never employed ... as an interim 

branch manager at any of its branches," and that Ryan O'Neil was the branch manager at the MLK 

Branch from February 2014 through September 2014. Crabtree Suppl. Deel. irir 6, 7, ECF No. 30. 

Page -2- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 15
Oh, I don't know. And he came back maybe a couple of minutes later and said, 

Well, I don't have my wallet, so never mind. And I said, Well, I have a boyfriend, 

so never mind. That probably wouldn't have worked out. 

Lord Depo. at 82. Plaintiff stated that she "relayed that message on to Desiree Vielmetti 

[apparently a service and sales manager], and she was like, Well, managers can't go out with 

their -- other people that they are bosses over." Lord Depo. at 83. Plaintiff has not presented 

evidence that she told any supervisor other than Vielmetti about Domine's alleged dinner 

invitation. 

Plaintiff now states, "After Domine asked me out, his behavior toward me changed in that 

he stopped coming by my work station unless he had to discuss a work matter with me, whereas 

before he would look for excuses to come by and talk to me." Lord Deel. ~ 7. Although the 

alleged dinner invitation occurred about a month after Domine staiiing work at the MLK 

Branch, Plaintiff testified that she had a good working relationship with Domine for the first 

"four to six months, roughly." Def. Reply, Ex. 1, at 32 (Lord Depo.), ECF No. 29-1. 

Plaintiff states that after Domine learned that she was dating a female security officer, he 

"began making sarcastic comments about my dating habits and how he wasn't my type." Lord 

Deel.~ 8. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she was not offended by Domine's comments, 

which were not "mean jokes." Def. Reply, Lord Depo. at 34. Plaintiff also testified that Domine 

made about one comment a week for a month, and the comments then "fizzled out on their own." 

Lord Depo. at 35. Plaintiff never complained about the comments to anyone. 

On September 16, 2014, Mandi Van Der Sluis began working as a sales and service 

manager at the MLK Branch, apparently replacing Vielmetti. On October 1, 2014, Althea 

Williams became the branch manager for the MLK Branch. 

On October 24, 2014, Van Der Sluis signed a 90-day Action Plan for Plaintiff because 

Page -3- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 15
Plaintiff had two cash outages of $100 or more. Van Der Sluis "was in charge of operations and . 

. . pulled all the reports as far as balancing and that sort of thing." Def. Reply, Ex. 3, at 41, ECF 

No. 29-3 (Van Der Sluis Depo.). Although Domine generally supervised Plaintiff, Van Der Sluis 

testified that "when instances happened like this where there were multiple outages I took the 

initiative to contact HR and get an action plan in place. So I was the one communicating with 

Haley Crabtree in HR." Id Domine would be notified about the Action Plan if he supervised the 

employee, but he would not necessarily have any input beforehand. 

The Action Plan here noted that on October 9, 2014, Plaintiff had an "unlocated cash 

difference" of-$100.00, and that on October 11, 2014, Plaintiff cashed a $267.34 check for a 

non-customer and processed the check as $627.34, for a loss of $360. The Action Plan instructed 

Plaintiff to take precautions including counting cash three times and completing "a trial balance 

before each break." Def. Mot., Ex. 5. While an employee is subject to an Action Plan, she is 

not eligible for transfer, promotion, or merit pay increases. The Action Plan here expired January 

22, 2015. Plaintiff does not dispute that the Action Plan was justified. 

On Janumy 26, 2015, branch manager Williams issued a performance review for 

Plaintiffs work during 2014. Def. Mot., Ex. 13. Plaintiff received an overall rating of"Solid 

Performance," a better rating than she received in her performance review for 2013. Plaintiff 

was rated as "Needs Improvement" in referrals and cash balancing. Plaintiff testified that this 

was a fair review. 

Plaintiff alleges that Lakisha Patterson, a teller at the MLK Branch, was initially friendly 

but began criticizing Plaintiff "after a customer and friend of hers, Wally Trice Jr., began 

favoring [Plaintiffs] teller window over hers." Lord Deel. il 14. On Februmy 19, 2015, 

Patterson spoke to Plaintiff about wearing a miniskirt shorter than allowed by Defendant's dress 

Page -4- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 15
code. Lord Deel., Ex. 4. Patterson had recently become a teller coordinator. Teller coordinators 

are not managerial employees, and have "no authority to hire, fire, discipline, promote, or 

. authorize merit pay increases." Crabtree Suppl. Deel. if 8 & Ex. 32, ECF Nos. 30, 30-4. The 

incident was noted on a "Significant Event Form" for Plaintiff: with an entry initialed by Van 

Der Sluis, stating, "Kisha spoke with [Plaintiff! today about dress code, specifically about not 

wearing sho1t miniskirts to work." Lord Deel., Ex. 4, at 1. Plaintiff does not contend that her 

skirt was in compliance with the dress code. Defendant did not discipline her for this conduct. 

The Significant Event Form for Plaintiff in early 2015 includes other entries about her 

daily work performance, good or bad. The entries were mainly by Van Der Sluis, with a few 

entries by Domine. For example, the entry for Janumy 13, 2015 states that Plaintiff left a $100 

bill in a night drop bag; the ent1y for Janumy 15, 2015, states, "Kisha observed [Plaintiff! leaving 

her top and bottom drawers unlocked after leaving her work station," and the ently for Februmy 

21, 2015, states that Plaintiff gave account information to a bank customer who was not 

authorized to receive the information. Lord Deel., Ex. 4. Defendant characterizes such entries as 

"coaching notes" with no effect on the terms or conditions of employment. Def. Reply 6. 

On Februmy 23, 2015, Plaintiff received a second Action Plan, again based on her failure 

to keep a daily balance. The Action Plan stated that on Februmy 5, 2015, Plaintiff had an 

unlocated cash difference of-$479.50, and on February 12, 2015, she had an unlocated cash 

difference of +$197.00. Lord Deel., Ex. 3, ECF No. 27-3. Plaintiff does not dispute the factual 

basis for the Action Plan. She asserts that Domine recommended that she be placed on the 

Action Plan, but like the prior Action Plan, this one was issued by Van Der Sluis. 

On March 1, 2015, Plaintiff received a merit pay raise. Def. Mot., Lord Depo. 23, ECF 

No. 20-1. In late Februmy or early March 2015, Plaintiff had a "coaching session" with 

Page -5- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 5 of 15
Domine. Domine and Van Der Sluis met regularly with tellers to discuss job performance. 

During this session, Domine spoke to Plaintiff about her failure to meet her goal for referrals, 

which was an ongoing issue for Plaintiff. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified, 

Nick [Domine] and I were having a conversation about my performance at his 

desk, and he had said he was the only one that wanted to keep me at the bank. 

That he was the only one fighting to have me there, which kind of threw me off 

because I had a good working relationship with everyone else. 

Def. Mot., Ex. 1, at 93. 

After talking to Domine, Plaintiff told Patterson about Domine's comments. Patterson 

told Plaintiff to "report that to HR because that's not true." Def. Mot., Ex. 1, at 94. Plaintiff then 

talked to Van Der Sluis. Van Der Sluis testified that Plaintiff "was upset thinking Althea 

[Williams, MLK Branch manager] and I had given up on her and didn't want her around any 

more." Macke Deel., Ex. 4, at 37, ECF No. 28-4. Van Der Sluis testified that she and Williams 

had not given up on Plaintiff, although they "were a little tired of the balancing record she had." 

Macke Deel., Ex. 4, at 38. Williams also talked to Plaintiff about Domine's statements, 

reassuring Plaintiff that she was not unwanted. Macke Deel., Ex. 5, at 49. 

Williams then talked to Domine about his statements to Plaintiff. Williams testified that 

Domine told her that he was trying to explain to Plaintiff that "because of the [referral] goals that 

were set for [Plaintiff! and she didn't attain them, he felt like he was doing the work and tried to 

save her job more than she was." Macke Deel., Ex. 5, at 49-50. Domine told Williams that he 

did not intend to tell Plaintiff that "nobody wanted her." Macke Deel., Ex. 5, at 50. 

After Williams's conversation with Domine, she talked to Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that 

Williams told her "that [Domine] didn't mean it that way." Lord Depo. 96. Plaintiff did not 

remember "the context of how [Williams] explained what he was meaning." Id. In her 

declaration, Plaintiff now characterizes Domine's statements as "strongly suggest[ing] that I 

Page -6- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 6 of 15
should show appreciation for him--implicitly by going on a date with him--because he could 

protect my job." Lord Deel. if 9. 

Plaintiff testified that soon after Williams had talked to Domine, Domine told Plaintiff, "I 

thought that [the discussion) could stay between you and I. I thought that was private. And I 

said, Okay. And he was like, Okay. And then he left." Lord Depo. at 96. Plaintiff testified that 

nothing further happened with Domine after that conversation. 

Plaintiff now states that Domine's statement about privacy "made me even more 

uncomfortable as I now believed that [Defendant] would take no action to protect me from 

Domine and instead were disciplining me. I again reported this comment to Althea Williams, 

making it clear that Domine was acting inappropriately and making me feel uncomfortable." 

Lord Deel. if 11. Williams spoke to Domine about his statement to Plaintiff, "explaining to him 

that he can't really say a conversation between employees is private. It isn't." Macke Deel., Ex. 

5, at 51. 

Williams testified that when Plaintiff complained about Domine's privacy statement, 

Plaintiff did not tell her that she felt intimidated by Domine. Macke Deel., Ex. 5, at 51. 

Williams testified that if Plaintiff had said "she felt uncomfortable or intimidated, then it would 

have been addressed as such, but she didn't say that." Id 

Plaintiff was terminated because of an incident with a bank customer that occuned May 

8, 2015. That day, Plaintiff and Patterson were working at adjacent teller windows. At about 5 

p.m., a regular bank customer, Jamaine Grayson, entered the bank.3 Plaintiff and Patterson were 

both familiar with Grayson. 

Grayson cut in line to go to Plaintiffs window, and Plaintiff handed him a bank 

3 Defendant has submitted video of these events from three camera angles. 

Page -7- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 7 of 15
envelope. Grayson walked back to a counter and placed something in the envelope. He waited 

in line, and when it was his turn, Patterson called him to her window. Grayson talked to 

Patterson for several minutes, but did not conduct any banking business. During his conversation 

with Patterson, Grayson stepped toward Plaintiffs adjacent window and slid the bank envelope 

back to Plaintiff. 

On May 14, 2015, Patterson told Williams that she thought Plaintiff had purchased 

cocaine from a customer in the bank on May 8. At Williams's request, Patterson wrote a 

statement about why she suspected Plaintiff had purchased drugs. Williams Deel., Ex. 24, ECF 

No. 21-4. 

After talking to Patterson, Williams repotied the incident to Hayley Crabtree, human 

resources business partner, and to Defendant's corporate security. Crabtree investigated the 

incident, viewing the video and talking to Patterson. 

On May 19, 2015, Crabtree and Kathy Benson, who worked for corporate security, 

interviewed Plaintiff at the MLK Branch about the May 8 incident. Plaintiff denied that she had 

purchased drugs. Plaintiff said that before the incident, she had visited Grayson at his house and 

loaned him $20 to purchase a cleaning product so he could detail her car. When Grayson was 

unable to purchase the cleaning product, he went to the MLK Branch to return the money to 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff said that the envelope Grayson handed to her contained $20. Plaintiff offered 

to take a drug test, but Defendant did not ask her to do so. 

Crabtree recommended termination. Crabtree believed that Plaintiff had conducted a 

drug transaction, and that even if drugs were not involved, Plaintiff admitted conducting a 

personal financial transaction with a bank customer at her teller window, which violated 

Page -8- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 8 of 15
Defendant's Code ofEthics.4 After talking to Crabtree, Williams decided to te1minate Plaintiff 

because she was on a "second Action Plan for performance issues and because she admitted to 

engaging in a personal transaction with a customer at her teller window." Id In addition to the 

balancing problems noted in the two Action Plans, Plaintiff had multiple cash outages of less 

than $50 that she could not account for, which Crabtree considered excessive for a teller with 

Plaintiffs experience. Crabtree Deel. if 12. District Manager Lance Rudge approved Williams's 

decision to te1minate Plaintiff. Williams states that she did not consult Domine or Van Der Sluis 

about the decision. Williams Deel. if 11. A few weeks later, Defendant ended its banking 

relationship with Grayson because of the incident. 

As evidence of how a comparable employee was treated, Defendant submits employment 

records for Andre Yu, a male teller who reported to Domine. Like Plaintiff, Yu received two 

Action Plans for balancing errors. Crabtree Supp. Deel. if if 3-5 & Exs. 29-31, ECF Nos. 30, 30-

1 to 30-3. Like Plaintiffs records, Yu's Significant Event Forms note multiple minor 

transgressions such as lateness, leaving keys unattended, and failure to lock the top cash drawer 

before leaving work. Crabtree Supp. Deel., Ex. 30. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

The comi must grant summmy judgment when there are no genuine issues of material 

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the 

moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the nomnoving pmiy must 

go beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A factual dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a 

4

The Code of Ethics states, "Never use company resources to ... [ c ]onduct outside business 

activities." Crabtree Deel., Ex. 28, at 4, ECF No. 22-4. The Code also provides, under the heading 

"Personal Finance," that employees are forbidden from participating in financial transactions with 

customers, including lending or borrowing money. Ex. 28, at 5. 

Page -9- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 9 of 15
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The substantive law governing a claim or defense dete1mines which 

facts are material. See 1vforelandv. Las Vegas lvfetro. Police Dep't, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 

1998). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the comi inust draw all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the nonmoving pmiy and may not make credibility determinations or weigh 

evidence. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Retaliation Claim 

Plaintiff brings a claim under Or. Rev. Stat.§ 659A.030(1)(f), asse1iing that Defendant 

retaliated against her for repo1iing gender-based harassment. To establish a retaliation claim 

under Oregon law, "A plaintiff must prove that: 1) the defendant intentionally retaliated against 

the employee because he or she filed a discrimination complaint; 2) the defendant did so with the 

intent of forcing the employee to leave the employment; and 3) the employee left the 

employment as a result of the retaliation." Dawson v. Enteklnt'l., 630 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 

2011) (citing Seitz v. Albina Human Res. Ctr., 100 Or. App. 665, 674-75, 788 P.2d 1004, 1010 

(1990)). "To establish causation [the plaintiff! must show by a preponderance of the evidence 

that engaging in the protected activity was one of the reasons for [the plaintiff's] firing and that 

but for such activity [the plaintiff! would not have been fired." Vil/iarimo v. Aloha Island Air, 

Inc., 281F.3d1054, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2002). 

I agree with Defendant that no reasonable jury could find that Defendant terminated 

Plaintiffs employment because she rep01ied gender-based harassment. Plaintiff has not 

presented evidence that any of the three decisionmakers, branch manager Williams, HR manager 

Crabtree, and district manager Rudge, knew Plaintiff had complained about Domine inviting her 

Page -10- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 10 of 15
to dinner in July 2014. "Essential to showing a causal link is 'evidence that the [decision-maker] 

was .aware that the plaintiff had engaged in the protected activity' at the time of making the 

decision adversely affecting the plaintiffs employment." Conroy v. Hewlett Packard Co., No. 

3:14-cv-01580-AC, 2016 WL 1276552, at *16 (D. Or. Mar. 31, 2016) (quoting Cohen v. Fred 

1'1leye1; Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

Williams did know that Plaintiff complained about Domine's coaching session statement, 

but the evidence shows that Plaintiff complained because she was concerned that Williams and 

Van Der Sluis had given up on her and that her job was in jeopardy. There is no evidence that 

Plaintiff complained to anyone before her tennination that Domine' s statement was an attempt to 

coerce her to go out with him. "[C]omplaints that do not mention or suggest discrimination are 

not protected activity." Sanchez v. Purina Animal Nutrition, LLC, No. 03: 13-cv-00864-HZ, 2015 

WL 667619, at *6 (D. Or. Feb. 13, 2015) (citing Jamal v. Wilshire 2vlgmt. Leasing Corp., 320 F. 

Supp. 2d 1060, 1079 (D. Or. 2004) (complaints that a supervisor was a "bad manager" but did 

not mention or suggest discrimination were not protected activity); Fitzpatrick v. Farmers Ins. 

Exch., No. 03:1l-cv-00553-KI,2012 WL 6584980, at *4 (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2012) (complaints 

about unfair treatment insufficient)). Because Plaintiffs second complaint about Domine was 

not about gender-based harassment, it cannot suppo1i her retaliation claim. 

Timing may show retaliation. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 

1065 (9th Cir. 2002) ("in some cases, causation can be inferred from timing alone" if the alleged 

retaliation follows "on the heels of protected activity"). Here, Plaintiff alleges that she refused 

Domine's dinner invitation in July 2014. She received an Action Plan in October 2014, but she 

admits that the Action Plan was justified because of her failures to balance her accounts. In early 

2015, Plaintiff received a more favorable performance review for 2014 than she had received for 

Page -11- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 11 of 15
her perfo1mance in 2013. Plaintiff's second Action Plan, issued in February 2015, was also 

justified, and Plaintiff received a merit pay raise in March 2015. Plaintiff was terminated in May 

2015. The timing of events here does not support Plaintiffs retaliation claim. 

Plaintiff alleges that Domine was responsible for the February 2015 Action Plan. The 

Action Plan was issued by Van Der Sluis, who was in charge of reviewing teller balancing 

reports. Discussing Action Plans is pmt ofDomine's di.1ties as a manager. In any event, Plaintiff 

admits that the 2015 Action Plan was justified. 

In her declaration, Plaintiff states that she was "shocked [by her te1mination] because I 

hadn't done anything wrong and had nearly completed my action plan, which was set to expire 

on May 26, 2015." Lord Deel. ~ 21. But it is undisputed that Plaintiff conducted personal 

business with a customer at her teller window, which violated Defendant's ethical rules. 

Assuming Plaintiff could show a prima facie case of retaliation, I conclude that 

Defendant has presented sufficient evidence that its reasons for terminating Plaintiff were not 

pretextual. To avoid summmy judgment, Plaintiff must offer "specific and significantly 

probative" evidence that Defendant's explanation for its action is a pretext for discrimination. 

Schuler v. Chronicle Broadcasting Co., 793 F.2d 1010, 1011 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has not 

done so here. In her declaration, Plaintiff states, "I can only imagine that [Defendant] wanted to 

get rid of me because of my complaints about Domine and that Patterson wanted me fired 

because of the incidents with Jamaine [Grayson] and Walli [Trice]. Patterson is the only person I 

could imagine would have manufactured such allegations." Lord Deel. ~ 22. Plaintiffs 

statement that she "can only imagine" Defendant's motivation for terminating her is not 

probative evidence of pretext. Defendant's stated reasons for terminating Plaintiff are supported 

by undisputed evidence in the record. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs 

Page -12- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 12 of 15
retaliation claim. 

II. Discrimination Claim 

Plaintiff brings a claim for sex discrimination based on Oregon law, which prohibits an 

employer from discriminating against an employee based on sex "in compensation or in terms, 

conditions or privileges of employment." Or. Rev. Stat.§ 659A.030(1)(b). "The standard for 

establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under Oregon law is identical to that used under 

federal law." Sneadv. lvfetro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001). To 

prevail on her discrimination claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she belonged to a protected 

class; (2) she perfmmed her job satisfactorily; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; 

and ( 4) Defendant treated her differently from a similarly situated employee who does not belong 

to the same protected class as Plaintiff. See }vfcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 

802 (1973). 

If Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, then Defendant can rebut the presumption of 

discrimination by producing evidence that Defendant undertook the challenged employment 

action for a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Id If Defendant rebuts the presumption, 

then Plaintiff can defeat summary judgment by offering evidence that the proffered explanation is 

a pretext for discrimination. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 443 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce evidence to allow a reasonable fact 

finder to conclude that the alleged reason for discharge was false, or that the true reason for the 

discharge was a discriminatory one). 

Here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence from which a reasonable jmy could find gender 

discrimination. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant treated her differently from similarly 

situated employees who were not in her protected class. Defendant submits evidence that Andre 

Page -13- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 13 of 15
Yu, a male teller, was also issued Action Plans for problems similar to Plaintiffs. There is no 

evidence that any other teller conducted a personal financial transaction with a customer in the 

bank and was not disciplined. 

Plaintiff argues that Patterson discriminated against her based on gender, alleging that 

Patterson was jealous of Plaintiffs friendly relationships with several male customers. As 

evidence of discrimination, Plaintiff cites Patterson's complaint that Plaintiffs miniskirt violated 

Defendant's dress code. 

Plaintiff does not contend that her skhi was in compliance with the dress code. Even if 

the dress was in compliance, Plaintiffs allegation that Patterson was jealous of the attention 

Plaintiff received from certain male bank customers does not support a claim for gender 

discrimination. "[P]ersonal conflict does not equate with discriminatmy animus." Barnett v. 

Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 153 F.3d 338, 342-43 (6th Cir. 1998); Vore v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 32 

F.3d 1161, 1162 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[P]ersonality conflicts between employees are not the business 

of the federal comis."). 

Nor do Domine's alleged sarcastic comments about Plaintiffs dating show sex 

discrimination. Plaintiff never complained about the comments, and she testified that she was 

not offended by them. No reasonable jury could find that Domine's alleged comments were 

evidence of gender discrimination. "[S]imple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents 

(unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatmy changes in the 'terms and conditions 

of employment."' Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (discussing Title 

VII) (internal citation omitted); see also Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1374-75 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(no hostile work environment where "off-color" jokes were told in workplace). Defendant is 

entitled to summaiy judgment on Plaintiffs discrimination claim. 

Page -14- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 14 of 15
CONCLUSION 

Defendant's Motion for Summmy Judgment, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED. Defendant's 

Motions to Strike, contained in the Motion for Summary Judgment, are DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

D'1ed lhi,,'.)b<'\Joy orfehrnmy, 20 . :~.:) 

l 

onorable Paul Papak 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Page -15- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00395-PK Document 32 Filed 02/28/17 Page 15 of 15