Ci rc ui tJ udge Evans di ed o n Augus t10 , 20 11 , an d did n ot  parti ci pate i n the decis ion ofthi s case, w hich is being res olved b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el u n d er 28 U .S.C . §4 6 (d ). The H onorab le W il li am M
. Conley, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  Co urt for the W es ter n D is tr ic t ofW is consi n, si tt ing by d es ignat i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2705 K RY S T EN A. O VERL Y, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. K EYB ANK N ATI ONA L A S S OC I A T I ON, K EY I NVEST MENT S ERV ICES LLC AN D K EY COR P I NSURANCE A GE NC Y U SA (W A ), et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:0 8-cv-00 66 2-SEB-TAB

— Sarah EvansBarker, Judg e.
A RGUED J UNE 3, 2011

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 10, 2011

Befo re E VANS , W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e s, a nd C ONLEY,

 D i s t r i ctJudg e . 2 N o. 10

- 2705 C ONLEY, D i s t r i ctJudg e . Kr y s t e n O v e r l y s u e d h e re mp l o y e rKe y In v e s t me n tS e r v i c e s L L C , i t s p a r e n tc o m pan y an d se ve ra l of its a ffiliat es (co llec tiv ely “K ey B an k” ) in I nd i ana s tat e co urt f oral l ege dly d iscri m i nati ng ba sed o n her gender and ret al i ating ag ai nst he r because o fher com pla i nt s of g ender disc ri m i nati on in vi ol ati on o f Tit l e VI I of the Civi l Rights A ct of 1964
. K ey B an k rem ove d the case to federa l cour t and l ate r filed a m oti on f o rs um m ary j udg m en t o n b o ththe di sc r im inat i o n a nd re tal i ati on cl aim s. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted that m oti on a nd ente re d finalj ud gm ent in f avo r ofKeyBank. O n ap p ea l, O ve rly arg u es th e d ist ric t c o u rterr ed in enter i ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ecause ge nuine i ss ues o f m ate rialf act re m ai ned re gar ding w hethershe w as disc rim in at ed an d ret al i a t ed ag ain st, su bj ec te d to a h os tile w or k e nvi ro nm ent a nd co nstr ucti vel y di schar ged be

cause of h er ge nd erand f orco m pla i ni ng ab out gender di sc r i m i na ti o n. F i ndi ng no di spu te d i ss ue s of g enui ne f act m ate ri alto Over l y’s cla i m s o fge nd erdi scr i m i nation or retali ation, and agreein g w ith th e d istri ct cou rt’s r ea so ns forg r an tingKey Ban k ’ s su m m ary j udg m en t mot i o n, tha tj ud g men twi l lb e a ffi r med

.

I
. B AC KG R O UND B ecau se O verly’ s c lai m s w ere d ecid ed on su m m ary j u d gm en t, w e view all fac ts in th e li gh t m os t f a v o r ab le to O ve rly

— th e non-m oving par ty

— an d dr aw a l lr ea so nabl e infe re nces i n herf avo r. A u lt v. Sp eich er, 63 4 F
. 3d 942, 945 (7th C ir. 2011).N o. 10

- 2705 3 A
. O verly ’s Use of Sc a nn ed S ign a tures Ove r l y b ec ame a fi na nc i ala dvi so rwi ththe M cD ona ld Finan cia l G roup i n 20 04. A cou p le years l ate r, she accepte d a si m i l arposi ti on with K eyB ank, provi ding fi nanci al advi ce to cl i ents at seve ral of i ts Cen tralIndi an a br an ch es . Ini ti al l y, Ov er l y ’ s di r ec t su pervi sorwas A nd re w M oul ton, the re gional sa l es m anage r f orKeyBank’s Centra lInd iana t er ri tor i es. Mo u l t o n r e s i g n e d i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 7
. R i c kB i e l e c k ib e c a me Overl y’ s new re gi onalsa l es m anage r i n M ar ch 200 7. Even though he was her d i re ct s up er vi sor, Bi el ecki usual l y o nl y inter acte d orm et w i th Over l y o nce a m onth be cause ofhi s s up er vi sory re sponsibi l i ti es f or m ult i ple te rr i tor i es. U pon beco m i ng r egi onalsa l es m anage r, Bi elecki w ou ld “rid e-a lon g” w ith fina n c ia l ad vis or s u n d er h is supervi si on in the CentralInd ian a b ra nches t o obs er ve ho w the y c o nduc te d b us i ne ss . Dur i ng a r i de- al o ng w ith Ove r l y o n Apr i l1 2, 2 00 7, Ov er l y e xpl aine d the pr o ce dur es us ed i n o pen i ngnew cl i en t ac co unt s. One proce du re th at cam e t o l i ght was Over l y’ s r el i ance on h er sc an n ed , as o p p os ed t o i n - p er so n, sign at u re s in executi ng ac count docum ents. Over l y e xplained that Bie l ecki ’ s pre deces sor M oul ton had sugges ted thather ass i sta nt, Caro lCooney, paste Over l y’s scanned si gnature o n cl ient docum ents to “speed up” the openi ng o f acco unts o n thos e o ccasi ons w hen Overly c oul d n ot be at the s peci fi c br anch i m m edi ate l y t o si gn the docum ent. O ve rly h ad ap p ar en tly u se d th is p ro c ed u re a p p ro x im ate l y tw enty ti m es ove r th e previ ous y earand w as4 N o. 10

- 2705 th e o nl y fi na nc i ala dvi sor t o do s o . Ov er l y a l so e nc o ur a g e d b a nk e r s t o s e l li nv e s t men tp r o du c t s o ut s i de K eyB an k ’ s pr o ductmenu wi th o utOv er l y b eingthe re to supervi se.

B. Com pl i anc eO

f f i ceInves t igat i on and Rec om m e ndat i on Fol l owing thei r ri de-a l ong, Bi el ec ki tol d Overl y t o sto p usi ng her s canned si gnatur e t o open acc ounts unti lhe l oo ked i nto th e p oli cy further

. Bi el eckithen re p or te d to K e yB an k’s co m p lian c e o ffice th at O ve rly used scanned or“cut and pasted” sign at ures . Bi el ecki also reported that O v e r ly en cou raged ban kers to selloff

m enu p r o d u c t s . T h i s r e p o r tt r i g g e r e d a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n. T h e c om p lian c e o ffice to ld B iele c ki to m ak e c er ta in b ot h p ro c ed u re s s to p p ed . B iele c ki reit er at ed th is t o h is enti re st aff, r em in d i ng the m thati n openi ng new acco unts ea ch fi nanci aladvis or sho uld per sonal l y s i gn a new acco unt appli cati on be f or e s ubm i tting i t. The next day , O ve rl y s poke w i th Bi el eckiand hi s bo ss, W al l y De Pa squa l e, the g en er alr egionalmana g er . Dur i ng thi s co nver sat i on, Over l y was to l d that using sc anned si g na tu r es a nd a dvi singb an k er s to s el lo ut si de th e p ro d u c t list w er e b o th im p ro p er p ro c ed u re s. O ve rly w as asked i f an y othe r finan cial a d v is o rs i n th e territory f ol l owed si m i l arprac ti ces. A l though she did notkno w of a n yo n e p er so n ally , Ov er ly m en t i o n ed be in g t old that K i rk G re en, al so a fi nanci aladvi sor, f ai l ed to m eet w i th so m e cl i en ts befor e s i gni ng paperworkto o penN o. 10

- 2705 5

O verly als o m enti oned an “Exception List ” that w a s cr ea ted 1 so cer tain b an k ers w h o com p leted the n ecessar y cou rse w ou ld b e au tho rized to sell ad d ition al finan cial p ro d u cts. Appa r e n t l y , th e b a n k e r s wo r k i n g wi th Gr e e n we r e n o t o n t he l i s t a n d s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n o p e n i n g c e r t a i n k i nds of acco u nts w i tho u t him

. A ltho u g h O v erly con tinu ally refers to the “Ex c ept i on Li s t ” a s the sa m e thi ng a s he r us i ng a s c ann ed sign atur e, the l i s twas c ons i der ed di ffer en tan d apart from O verly’ s use ofa s canned si gnature. new acc ounts. 1 Bie l eckir epor ted Over l y’ s a l l ega ti ons about G reen to th e co m pl i an ce offi ce . He a l so que st i o ne d Gr ee n abo ut proc ed u re s use d to open acc ounts. Gree n denie d that he e v e r s i g ne d ne w a c c o un t pa pe r wo r k wi tho utf i rs t m eet i ng the custo m er . The com pli ance offi ce t ol d Biel ecki to r emi nd hi s empl o y ee s, i nc l udi ng G re en, abo utthe com pany pol i cy re quir i ng advi sor s t o be p re sent w i th the c ustom erwh en si gni ng an acco unt docum ent. A s par t o fthei r i nvest i gat i on, the com pli ance o ffi ce an d B iele c ki a lso co n ta c te d ba n ke rs w or kin g w ith O ve rly t o a s kthe m a b o uts e l l i ngfi na nc i al p ro du c t s o ut s i de Key Ban k ’ s pr o ductmenu. One bank era dm i tt ed m ak i ng una u th o r i z e d s a l e s o fv a r i ab l e a n n u i t y p r o d u c t s wi th

out Overl y’ s a ssi sta nce. Aft e ri t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n, th e c o mp l i a n c e o ffi c e r e c o mm en ded th atOv er l y b e te rm inat ed. Bi el ec k ia nd DeP as qua l e ch al l en g ed th e r ec o m m en dat i o n, a r g ui ng tha tOv e r l y s ho ul d r e main e mpl o y e d a tKe y Ba nk

. La t er i n the m onth o fM ay, Over l y was g i ven a f or m alwri tte n6 N o. 10

- 2705

war ni ngfr o m the c o m pl i ance o ffi ce a nd a $ 10 00 fi ne f orvi ola ti ons ofthe fra ud and “Kn ow Your Cli ent” pol i ci es at K eyBank and the N ati onalA sso ci ati on o f Se c u rit ies D ea le r s R u le 2 31 0. A d d itio n ally , a m ale b an ke r w h o a d m itt ed t o se llin g v ar iab le a n n u itie s in vi ol ati on o fKeyBank pol i cy w as fi ned $100

.
C. Over l y’s Pr ob l e m s wi t h Bi e l e ck i A t t h e e n d of M a y 2 0 07, Ov er ly c on ta c te d M ar c ia H opki ns, i n K eyBank’ s hum an r eso urces departm ent, about the di sci plinary acti ons tak en ag ai nst he r by K eyBank, as wellas se xi st re m ar ks she a tt rib u ted to Bie l ecki

. Over l y e xplain ed that Bi el eckihad cal l ed her “cuti e” between 5 and 10 t i m es, t hough st opped aft er O ve rly to ld h im sh e w as n oth is c u tie . A lso , in an em ail, Bi el ec k is ta te d tha t i t woul d b e be tt erf o rOv er l ya nd J enni ferM i l l er, a j uni o ra dvi so r, to g o t o a g o l fo ut i ng b e c a u s e “ y o u rp r e t t y f a c e s a r e mu c h b e t t e rth a n my ugl y m ug. ” Bi el eckial so re quir ed Overl y t o l eave her pla nner and purs e outsi de the ro om w hen h av in g an offi ce m eet i ng. Overl y e xpresse d concern that the disc i pline she had received w o u ld be m arked on he r l icens e and hu rt her chances f orfuture em plo ym ent. H opki ns advi sed Overl y that KeyBank had put th e issue behi nd i t a nd that she s houl d do l i kew ise . W hen Overly c ontinued to as k about the di sci pline, H opki ns o ffered t o tal k with D e P a s q u a l e , b u tO v e r l y d i d n o tw a n tt o i n v o l v e h i m. H opki ns sugg est ed that Over l y s houl d keep her“hea dN o. 10

- 2705 7 dow n and j ust g o backto work and act as though e ver yth in g’s fine .”

D
. R eal ign m ent o

f Fin a nc ia l A dv iso rs Du ring the sum m ero f20 07, KeyBank’s pre si dent, M a r kV o s e n, b e g a n i mp l eme nt i nga c o mpa ny - wi de b us i n e s s p l a n t o i n c r e a s e th e n u mb e r o f fi n a n c i a l a dvis or s t h ro u gh ou t t h e co u n tr y. T h e g oa l w as to en ab le sa l es t ea m s to s er ve mor e effec ti ve l y b y red ucingthe num bero fbank bra nches e ach advi sorwould se rv e. KeyBank setthe goa lo ft ry in g to re ar ra nge t er ri tor i es so that each a dvis orwas re sponsibl e for f our orfi ve bra nches w i th b e t we e n $ 1 2 5 mi l l i o n a nd $ 1 5 0 mi l l i o n i n c o r e deposi ts. In J anua ry 2006, KeyBank had 81 a dvis or s a nd , by J anuary 2010 , the num ber had incre ase d to 211 nati onw i de. As the r eg i o na ls al es m an ag er, Bi el ec k iwas r es po nsib le for th e re alig n m en t o f ad vis or s in h is re gio n . In addi ti o n t o r ea l i g ni ngt er r i to r i es , Bi el ec k i in f o r m ed th e C en tralIndi an a r eg i o n tha t a ne w fi na nc i ala dvi so r, Shaun W eye r, had bee n hi re d. W i th the i ncl usi on o f We y e ra s a n a d v i s o r, th e C e n t r a lIn d i a n a r e g i o n c o nsisted of 6 ad visors : O verly, W eyer, D ou g Ferry, K irk Gr ee n, De b Bo ha nno n a nd M ar sh al lBy er s. A fte rthe re al i gnm en t, Fer rywas re sponsibl e for5 bra nches with a co re deposi t ba se of$1 86, 027, 005; B ohannon was r esponsibl e for5 bra nches with a c or e deposi t ba se of $1 10 , 79 8, 22 1; Gr ee n was r es po ns ibl e f o r5 br an ch es wi tha c or e d ep os it b as e o f $1 4 7,6 17,96 4; B ye rs w as res p on sib le f or7 bra nches with a c or e deposi t ba se of $101, 335, 781;8 N o. 10

- 2705 W eyer w as resp ons ibl e for 6 bran ch es w ith a c ore de p o s i tb a s e o f$ 1 3 9 , 4 1 6 , 2 8 5 ; a n d O v e r l y wa s r e spo nsibl e for6 b ra n c h es w i th a cor e deposi t ba se of $147, 179, 571. A s t h e re su lt of t h is re alig n m en t o f te rr i t o r ies , Ov er ly lo s t 3 of h er old br an c h es an d ga in ed 2 n ew on es . Ov er ly w as up setbythe re al i gnm ent b ecau se she had w or ked hard to bui l d-up the l ostte rr i tor i es. A ccor ding to J enni ferM i l l er, the j unio r advi sorworkingunder Overl y, the re al i gnm en t a pp ear ed to pro vi de W eye r wi tha l lthe b es t br an ch es a nd to d iv i de up the te r r i to r i es “ so tha t ev ery o ne was dr i vingt o i nc o nve n ien t loc at ion s, ex c ep t Sh au n .”

E. O ve r l y’s Fo r m al Com pl ai nt O n A ug us t 7, 2007, Ov erly se n ta letter to K eyB an k’s C E O a lleg in g t h at sh e h ad be en d isc rim in at ed an d ret aliat ed ag ains t i n the f orm o f( 1) the di sc i pl i na r y war ni ng she r ecei ved, ( 2) being ca l l ed “cuti e, ” and ( 3) the l oss ofte rr i tory. Tw o days l ate r, Yol anda J ohnson, fro m K ey B an k’s h u m an re so u rc e d ep ar tm en t, in for m ed O ve rly that her al l ega ti ons w oul d be invest i gat ed. Over l y was se nt a l et te r o n Augus t 22 , 20 07, i nf o r m i ng he r th at the i nvest i gat i on had bee n concl ud ed. The l ett eradvi sed Overl y that the i nvest i gat i on h ad found no e vi dence of disc ri m i nati on o r re tal i ati on. Instea d, the investi gat i on fou n d th e d isc ip lin e O ve rly r e c e ive d w as w ar ra n te d in li gh t of he r i m p rop er use o f a sca nn ed signatu re. Furth er, it con c lu d ed th at B iele c ki’s c allin g he r “c u tie ,” w h ileN o. 10

- 2705 9

A ltho u g h n ot listed in he r com p lain t letter, O v e r l y also 2 began having trouble ac ces sin g new cl ie nt i nf orm ati on after the A u g u st 1, 20 07, terri t or y realig nm en t. A s a resu lt, O v erly w as force d to ask her assistant, Ca ro l Co on ey , to o b tain new cl ie nt i nf orm ati on f or her. Sin ce A p ril 2 00 7, O v erly h ad b een r esear ch ing the p ossib ility 3 of starting her ow n fina nc ial ad v ising b u siness. i napp ro pri ate , would not oc c u r i n the future. Final l y, Overl y was i nfo rm ed that the r eal i gnm ent in her d istri ct w as d one i n ac cord an ce w ith t h e com p an y’s na ti o nwi de bus i ne ss pl an . 2

F. Over l y’s Re s ignat i on Aft erOv er l y r ec ei ve d the i nv es ti g at i o n l et te ra t th e en d o fAugus t, sh e s aw Bi el ec k io nl y o nc e o ve rthe ne xt m onth a nd they e x c h anged m aybe 5 to 6 e m ai l s. Both Ove r l y a nd Biel ec k ia tt en ded a sy m po sium a t th e en d ofS eptem ber, but did notspeak

. U p on retu rning from the sym p os iu m , Ov erly p ersonal l y s ubm i tte d h er r esi gnati on l ett erto Bi el eckio n Oc t o b e r1 , 20 0 7
. Upo n r e c e i v i ngthe l e t t e r, Bi e l e c k ia ppl au d ed a nd g r ab be d Ov er l y ’ s ar m t o pus h h ero utthe d oor. Ov erly yell ed tw ice at Bielecki to get h is han d s off her. A s Over l y l eft Bi ele c ki ’ s o ffi ce, he y el l ed “Good Riddance Bi tch. ” Afte r her re si gnati on, Over l y b ega n w or kin g a t h er ow n bu si n es s, P ro sp er ity Fin an c ial A d visor s. 310 N o. 10

- 2705 Two wee ks a ft e rh e rr e s i g na t i o n, Ov e r l y fi l e d a com pla i nt with the Equal Em plo ym ent Opport u ni ty C o mmi s s i o n ( “ E E O C ” ) , a l l e g i n gth a ts h e s u ffe r e d d i s c r i mination an d retali ation at K eyB a nk becau se of her gend er. On J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , th e E E O C i s s u e d h e r a r i g h t to s ue l e t t e r . O n Ma r c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , O v e r l y f i l e d a s e c o n d c o mpl aintwi ththe EEOC, makings i m il ar di sc r i m i na ti o n a nd re tal i ati on char ges ag ai nst KeyBank. The E E O C i ssued her a s eco nd r i ght t o sue l ett ero n N ove m ber24, 20 08.

II. A N A L Y SIS W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e n ov o, vie w in g a ll fac ts i n a ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to O ve rly

. Tur ne r v. The Sal oon, Ltd

. , 59 5 F
. 3d 679, 68 3 ( 7th C ir. 2010). E ven un d er this l en ient sta n d a r d , how ever, O v e r l y h a s n o tme t he r bu r d e n o fp r o v i n gh e re mp loy er d isc rim in at ed on th e b as is of h er ge n d er in vi ol ati on o fTi tl e VII. 4 2 U.S

. C. § 2 000e

- 2( a) ( 1)

. Because O ve rly ad v a n c e s T itle V II c laim s fo r a h os tile w or k e n vir o nm en t, c o ns truct i ve di sc ha r g e an d s ex di sc r i m i na ti o n, we a ddr es s ea chi n tur n.

A
. Titl e VII Sexual-Harass m entClaim 1. Host i l ework e nvi r onment O verly clai m s tha t sh e w as su bj ecte d to a hostile w ork en vi r o nm en t afte rBi el ec k ib ec ame h ers upe r vi so r . To su rv ive K ey B an k’s su m m a r y jud gm en t m ot ion on th is claim , Ov erly m us t d em ons trate th at: “( 1) her w orkN o. 10

- 2705 11

en vironm en t w as both ob jec tively an d sub j ectively offensi ve; ( 2) the hara ssm ent c om pla i ned ofwas base d on herge nd er ; ( 3) the conduct w as ei ther seve re orper vasi ve; and (4) there i s a basi s fo r em plo yerl i abi l i ty. ” Sc r uggs v . Ga rs t S e e d Co. , 5 8 7 F. 3d 832, 840 (7th Cir. 2009). I n deter m i ni ng wh et h er the sexi st condi ti ons ofem plo ym ent a re se ver e o r perva si ve enough t o cre ate “a n ab us i ve wor k i nge nv i r o nm en t, ” we c o ns i der“ th e seve r i t y o fthe a l l e g e dl y di s c r i mi na t o r y c o nd uc t, i ts fre q u en c y, w h e t h er it is p h ys ica lly th re at en in g or h u m iliat in g or m er ely offe n siv e, an d w h et h er it u n re as on ab ly i nter fer es w i th an em plo yee ’ s workper f or m ance. ” Id. The condi ti ons Overl y w or ked under whil e Bi el ecki a c t e d a s h e rs u p e r v i s o rb e t we e n A p r i la n d S e p t e mb e r2 0 0 7s i mpl y do n o tme e tthi s s t a nd a r d. W hi l e bo th i napp ro pri ate and condesce n d in g, Bi el ecki r efer r i ngt o Ov er l y a s “cu ti e” 5 t o 1 0 ti m es o ve rthe cour se oftwo m onths i s no t s u fficiently s eve re o r p ervasive to creat e a host ile w ork env ironm en t by itself, especiall y s i nce i t i s undis pu ted thatBi el eckist opped w hen ask ed . Furthe r, Bi el ecki ’ s s i ngl e s tat em ent that Overl y’ s a nd ano therfem al e co - w or ker’s “pret ty f aces ” w oul d betterr epres ent KeyBank ata gol fo uti ng tha n h is “ u gly m u g” is n otob j ec tiv ely offe n siv e, ev en if Ove r l y m ayhav e f o und i t su bj ec ti ve l y s o . Inde ed, no th i ng B iel ecki i s all eged to have d o n e b ecau se of Overly’s gender, ta ken ind i vi du al l y o r as a wh ol e, can be v i ew ed as thr ea te ni ngo rhumi l i at i ng, much l es s fr equent en ou gh, to have un reason ably i nt er fered w ith he r w ork p erform an ce. A cce p ting as tru e for p urp ose s o f su m m ary j ud gm ent that Bie l ecki al so m ade Overl y l eave her p u rs e12 N o. 10

- 2705

an d p lan n er ou ts id e o f a m e e t i n g, th at on e-t im e a c t is a l s o n o t s u ffi c i e n t l y s e v e r e o r fr e q u e n t t o me e t th e Sc r uggs s t a nd a r d. Pe r ha ps a co m bina ti o n o fa l lo fthe se i nc i den ts , a l o ng w i th the disc i pline Overl y re cei ved f or usi ng a s c an n ed sig n at u re , m igh t h av e a p p ro ac h ed th is lev el, bu t O ve rly has o ffer ed no e vi dence to per m i t a r eas on ab le j ury to fi nd the d isci pl i ne was b as ed o n a ny th i ngo th ertha n a vi ol ati on o fK ey B an k pol i cy. A l though Over l y a sks us t o “i nfe r” thatthe disc i pline was g en d er - re l ate d, such an i n fe r e n c e i s n o tr e a s o n ab l ys u p p o r t e d b y th e r e c o r d

. As su c h, w e n ee d n otac c ep t it
. Se e, e. g. , O m ni ca r e, Inc . v. U nite dH ealth Grp., Inc. , 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th C ir. 2011). ( “Even on sum m ar y j ud gm en t, dist ri ct c ourt s a re not re quir ed to draw ever y r equeste d infer ence; theym ust o nl y dr aw r ea so nabl e o ne s th at ar e su ppo r te d b y the record

. ”). Overl y r eadi l y a dm i tte d to bei n g the onlyfi nanci al advi sorto use scanned signature s in vi ol ati on o fwri tte n pol i cy; she w as disc i plined accor dingl y. Rega rd less o f w ha t O ve r ly ’s p revious su p ervisor had told he r, there is no disp ut e tha t the proc ed ure viol ated K eyB an k’s w ri tte n pol i cy, as ev i denced by the f act that no o ther adv i so r s wer e us i ngs cann ed si g na tu r es . Ev ena cc ept i ng Overl y’s s ec o ndha nd inf o r m at i o n tha t a co - wor k ere ngag ed i n so m e o theri m properco nd uct was not disci plined afterdenyin g engag i ng i n i t doe s no t m ake r e a s o nab l e a n i nfe r e nc e tha tOv e r l y wa s di s c i pli ned beca use sh e i s a wom an . S i m i l ar l y, O verl y ha s f ai l ed to o ffere vi den ce s uffi ci en t f ora re aso nabl e j ury to fi nd the re al i gnm ent o fte rr i tor i esN o. 10

- 2705 13

was g en der

-ba se d. Ev ery fi na nc i ala dvi so ri n the C entr alInd i ana r egi on r ecei ved r eas si gned te rr i tor i es as a r esul t o fthe com pany’s undisputed busi ness pla n to add mo r e fi na nc i a la dv i s o r s i n a n e ff o r tt o i ncre ase cli en t services. A t m o s t, the eviden ce in th e record cr e a t e s an inferen ce th at B iel ecki rearrange d the territory to f avo r Shaun W eye r at the inconveni ence ofal lo ther advi sor s, bo th m al e a nd fem ale , but such prefer enti al t r e a t me n ti s e v i d e n c e o ff a v o r i t i s m, n o ts e x i s m. T h e financi alfi gure s o ffer ed by Overl y a re , i fanythi ng, eve n l ess suppo rt ive o fhercl ai m o fge nd er -base d disc r i mi na ti on . Ov e r l y e s t i mat e s tha ts he wo ul d l o s e a ppr o xi m at ely $ 10 0, 00 0 o ve rthe ne xt ye ara s a r es ul t o fthe re al i gnm ent. Thi s is bas ed on the f act that between J anuary20 07 and Au gust 2007, she had e ar ned $172 , 374. 94, w hi ch ave ra ged o ut to approxi m ate l y $ 22, 575. 12 per m on th , an d th e fa c t t h at sh e t h en rec eiv ed a c h ec k in Octoberfro m sa l es i n Sep te m ber20 07 that tot al ed $8 , 22 6. 02
. Howev er, thi s figur e i s o fl i tt l e, i fa ny, e vi den

ti ar y v al ue i n deter m i ni ng the l i kel y fi nanci ali m pact o f re a l ign m en t o n O ve rly ’s p ay . Th is is b ec au se O ve rly provi des no actual, m onthl y e ar ni ngs, le av ing no way of deter m i ni ng wh etherthe Octoberam ount i s a nom al ous, m uch l ess wh etherthe ass er ted dro p i n i ncom e was li kely to continu e over tim e. O verly’s c o m p a r ison of a si ng le m onth’ s per f or m ance aga i nst a se ven m onths’ aver age al so f ai l s t o acco u n t for m onth- to- m onth fl uctuati ons, nord id she pro vi de how m uch she would have ea rn ed fro m h er old te rrit or ies
. Inth e e n d , on e c ou ld on ly spe cul at e wi l dlyabo utthe a ctua lfi na nc i ale ffec t o fthe14 N o. 10

- 2705

Even as s um i ng Over l y was e ar ni ng l es s afte r the r ea s s i gn- 4 m ent, the re is nothing i n the rec ord to s how s he t ook a dis prop ortion ate hit finan cially tha n d id her m ale co u nte rp arts. A t m o st, the evidence provided by O verly proves s he w ould recei ve a re duce d s l i c e ofthe i nc om e pi e, butthi s i s ha rdl y s urpri s i ng gi ve n tha t the com pa ny a dde d a n a ddi t i on a l a dvi s ort o s e r ve th e sa m e n u m b er o f sa le te rr ito ri es . re alig n m e n t f r o m th e lim ite d info rm at ion O ve rly pr o v i de d. 4 The conduct co m in g c l ose st to sugge sting i nter fer ence w i th Overl y’ s w or k perf or m ance i s her l oss of a cces s to new cli en t inform ation after the reass ig n m e nt of terri tor i es. A ccor ding to Overl y a t l eas t, she w as denie d ac ce ss t o ne w cl i en t i nf o r m at i o n bet wee n Aug us t an d Se ptem ber, f or ci ng her to see k thi s i nfo rm ati on t h ro ugh he ra s s i s t a nt
. T he r e i s , h o we v e r, n o e v i de nc e fr o m which a r eas onabl e j ury coul d i nfe r th at the l i m i tat i on was a m er e a nnoyance re sul ti ng fro m the re al i gnm ent pr oce ss, as op p osed to an inten tional and un r e a son able interfer en ce mot i va te d b y g en derb i as. In f ac t, a l th o ugh the pr o bl ems wi tha cc essingne w cl i en ts b eg ano cc ur r i ng w hen the re ass i gnm ent o fte rr i tor i es w ent into effect on A u gu st 1, O v e r l y d id n otinc lu d e t h e p ro b lem in her l ett erto KeyBank m anage m ent info rm i ng the m o f th e di sc r i m i na ti o n a nd r et al i at i o n s he c lai m ed to b e ex peri enci ng . Furthe r, Over l y nev erm enti oned the problem t o hum an r eso urces , ev en tho ugh she w as discus singherdi sc r i m i na ti o n a nd r et al i at i o n a l l eg at i o ns w i th the m duri ng the m onth o fA ugust.N o. 10

- 2705 15 Even ass um i ng tha t the co nd uct was an unre aso nabl e, in te n tio nali nter fer ence, ther e i s no ev i dence to sugg est th e co nduc t was the re su l t o fg en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n. W hi l e bo th Over l y a nd heras si st an t s tat ed that she was the onlya dvi so rwho was de ni ed ac ce ss t o c l i en t i nform ati on, O ver l y was notthe onl y wom an advi sor, sugg es tingtha t th e co nduc t was the r es ul t o fpe r so na la ni m us to w ar d O ve rly , rat h er th an g en d er -b as ed an im u s. U ltim at ely, thi s evide nc e i s o nl y s pec ul at i o n tha t th e co nduc t was the resul t o fg en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n a nd re l i ance o n specul ati on i s no t e nough to ge t th e ca se to a jur y. See D a vis v . Ca rter, 452 F.3d 686 , 697 (7th C ir. 2006 ) ( expla in ing that “ w hen the evi dence pro vi des f or on ly sp ec u lat ion or gu es sin g, su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p rop riate”). By f arthe m ostdist u rbing ev i dence ofge nd erbi as com es a fterOver l y had al read y r esi gned, but thi s ca nnot est abl i sh a host i l e e nvi ro n m ent befo rehe rr es i g na ti o n. W h ile i t i s u n a c c ep ta b le for a p er so n to gra b an ot h er in the work pla ce without per m i ssi on, m u c h les s t o re fer to a wom an as a “b itc h ,” Bie l ecki ’ s a cti ons do not sat i sfy Over l y’ s bur den to prove sh e s uffer ed obj ecti ve l y s ev er e and pe r va si ve g en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n w hile wor k i ngf o rKey Ban k

. In f ac t, Ov er ly admi ts tha t sh e had ver y l i ttl e f ace- to- f ace i nter acti on with Bieleck i du ring the si x m on th s he supervi sed her

. A t m ost, they m eton c e a m on th . Th e fa c t th at B iele c ki a c te d w ro n gly after Ov erly re signed doe s not serv e as evide nc e of a h os til e workenvi ro nm ent whil e work i ng atKeyBank. A ccor dingl y, the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t o n O ve rly ’s h os tile w or k e n vir o n m e n t c laim w as p rop er.16 N o. 10

- 2705 2. Cons t r uc t i veD i s ch arge T o p re va il o n h er c laim o f c on st ru c tiv e d isc h ar ge , Ov er ly w ou ld h ave h ad to adv an ce evi d en ce “ev en m ore eg r eg i o us tha n tha t ne ede d f o ra h osti l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t suc h th at [s]he w as forced to resi gn becau se [her] w or ki ng co nd i ti ons fro m the s ta nd poi nt o fthe re asonab l e e m plo yee had bec om e unbear abl e. ” Thom ps on v. M em ’l Hosp. of Carbondale, 625 F.3 d 3 94, 401-02 (7th C ir. 2010 ) (i nt erna l qu otation om itted ). Th u s , Ov erly’ s fai lure to ad van ce evid en ce s u ffici en t to find a hostile w ork envi ro nm ent c l ai m al so doom s herco nstr ucti ve disc h a r g e c l a i m.

3. D i s cr i m i nat i on Fi nal l y, Over l y c l ai m s di scr i m i nati on ba sed o n her gender, purport edl y pr oce edi ng und erwh at has ( som ew h at i naccurat el y) bee n denom i nated as the “dir ect m etho d” ofpro of

. “A plainti ffm ay p ro ve disc ri m i nati on using the direct m etho d by e stabl i shi ng ei theran a c k n o wl e d g me n to fd i s c r i mi n a t o r y i n t e nto rc i r c u ms t a nt i a le v i de nc e tha tp r o v i de s the b a s i s f o ra n i nfe r e nc e of i ntenti onaldi scr i m i nati on. ” Kam pm i e rv. Em e r i t us Corp. , 472 F.3d 930, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). O verly does neith er. D esp ite Ove rly’ s a r gu m en t to the con trary, B iel ecki’s patentl y o ffensi ve re sponse to Overl y’ s r esi gn at ion i s no t d ire c t e vid en c e o f ge n d e r d isc rim in at ion . Som e a d d iti onalev i den c e w oul d be r equi re d fo r that sta tem ent t o be reg ar ded bya re aso nabl e j ury as a co nfe ssi on that a n y p r e v i o us , a d v e r s e c o n d u c tw a s t a k e n f o ra d i s c r i m-N o. 10

- 2705 17 in at or y p u rp os e. Se eL im v. Tr us t e e s of Ind. U ni v. , 29 7 F
. 3d 575, 5 8 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( r e qu i r i ng ” di r e c t e v i de nc e ” to “pro ve the par ti cul arf act i n questi on without r el i ance up on infer ence orpre sum pti on”) ( i nter nalquotat i on an d e mph a s i s o mi t t e d )

. F o re x a mpl e , i fth e t e r m “ b i tc h” w er e u tt er ed as an ex p lan at ion for c on te m p or an e o u sly si ngl i ng o ut Over l y fro m herm al e cou nter parts f orl oss of pay, terri tory, ben efi ts or o p p o r tu nity, then no inferen c e w ou ld be req u ire d . A s a lre ad y d isc u ss ed , Ov er ly has o ffer ed no s uch evi dence her e. The sta tem ent is al so not ci rcum sta nti alev i dence of di sc r i m i na ti o n, s i nc e i t was ne i th erm ad e a r o und the ti m e o f any adver se em plo ym ent a cti ons, norr efer ences an y a dve r se e m pl o y m enta ct i o ns ( l i k e th e di sc i pl i ne l ett erOver l y r ecei ved back in M ay)

. Instea d, how eve r offensi ve, the st ate m ent was a str ay re m ar k m ade after O ve rly res ign ed

. SeeN ichols v. S. Ill

. U niv. -Ed w ardsvil le, 510 F. 3d 772, 78 1- 82 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol ding “st ra y r emar k s th atare ne i th erpr o xi m at e no rr el at ed to the em plo ym ent deci si on [ at i ssue] ar e insuffic i ent t o defe at sum m ar y j ud gm en t) ( i nter nalci tat i on a nd quotat i on m a r ks om itt ed ”); see also M e r i l l atv . M e t al S pi n n e rs , In c. , 4 7 0 F
. 3 d 6 8 5 , 6 9 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g“ i s o l a t e d c o mm ents that ar e no m or e than ‘ str ay re m ar ks’ i n the w or kp lac e a re ins u fficie n t t o e st ab l i s h t h at a p ar tic u lar d ec ision w as m otivated by d iscrim inatory an im us ”). A s d isc u ss ed ab ov e in th e c on te x t o f O v e r ly’s h os tile w or k e nvi ro nm ent c l ai m , ther e i s a ge nera l l ack ofo ther ci rcum st an ti alev i dence fro m wh i ch to i nfe r that any o f Bie l ecki ’ s co nd uct

— su ch as his reassigning of Ov erly’ s te r r i to r i es , t empor ar i l y b eingde ni ed ac ce ss t o c l i en t18 N o. 10

- 2705

acco unts, o r re port i ng herto the com pli ance o ffi ce

— w as th e r es ul t o fi nt en ti o na l, g en der

-ba se d di sc r i m in at i o n. The onl y a l l ege d , ge nd er - re l ate d com m ent was Bi el ecki cal l i ng Over l y “ cuti e, ” s om ethi ng byal lacc ounts he stop p ed w he n tol d sh e d id not li ke its us e. M o r e o v e r, i ts us e i s no t l i nk ed to o r co nt empor an eo us w ith a ny adv er se e m pl o y m en t ac ti o n. A l though vi ew i ng the f acts i n a l i ght m ost f avora b le to Ove r l y s ug g es t th atBi el ec k imay no t ha ve l i k ed he r, a nd ev entha t he ma y h ave be enmakinghe rl i fe atKey Ban k m or e di ffi cul t, tho se sam e f acts do notsupport a r easo nabl e i nfer en ce tha t he di d no t l ike he rb ec au se s he i s fe m ale . Si m plyput, ther e a re no bi ts and piec es of c irc u m st an tia l ev id en c e t h at “p oin t d ire c tly to a d isc rim in at or y r eas on for[ Bie l ecki ’ s] act i on. ” Pe t t s v . R o c k l e dge F u r n i t u r eL LC, 53 4 F
. 3d 715, 72 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( i nter nal qu otati on o m i tte d). A ccor dingl y, the dist ri ct c ourtwas cor rect in gr anti ng KeyBank’ s m oti on forsum m ar y j ud gm en t o n Ov er l y ’ s cl ai m f o rg en derdi sc r i m i na ti o n.

B
. Titl e VII Retali ation Claim To have sur vi ved sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n herr eta l i ati on cl ai m usi ng the di re ct m etho d, Overl y nee ded to show “( 1) she engag ed i n sta tutor i l y pr ote cted ac ti vi ty; ( 2) she suffer ed an adver se em ploym ent a cti on t ake n by th e empl oyer; an d ( 3) a c au sa lc o nne ct i o n b etwee n the tw o. ” Ko dl v . B d. o

f E d u c. Sch . D ist. 45, Villa P a rk, 49 0 F
. 3d 558, 56 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. The part i es ag re e, as do w e, that Ove r l y ’ s co m pl aintto Key Ban k ’ s H R de par tmentabo ut Bie l ecki ’ s a l l ege d sexualhar ass m ent i s a pro tec tedN o. 10

- 2705 19 acti vi ty und erTi tl e VI I ’ s a nti

- re tal i ati on p ro vi si on. 42 U
. S. C

. § 2000 e-3(a). T he p roblem rem ains w ith O verly’s i nabi l i ty to show that Bi el eckito ok any a dvers e a cti on agains t her be causeof her com pla i nt. O verly p o in t s to the reass ignm en t of som e of he r terri tor i es as evi dence ofr eta l i ati on. N o re aso nabl e j ury, h ow ever, co uld fi nd thatthe re ass i gnm ent was be cause of O ve rly ’s c om p lain t. Ins te ad , th e re as sig n m en t w as in line w ith K ey B a nk ’s nationa l bu siness plan to hire m ore fi nanci aladvi sor s a nd as si gn few erte rr i tor i es to each adv i so r . The re is no t ev ene vi den ce tha t atthe c o ncl us i o n o f th e r ea ss i g nm en t o ft er r i to r i es wi th i n the Ce nt r a lInd i a na r e g i o n, Ov e r l y ’ s n e w t e r r i t o r i e s ma de her any wors e o ffthan the o theradvis or s in the re gi on. Even the j unio r advi sor w or ki ng f or Overly no ted that the r eas si gnm ent a pp ear ed both ersom e forev er yo ne

— except forthe new l y- hi re d advis or

— w ho u n su rp ris in gly w as a for m er co llea gu e o f B iele c ki. The sam e is t ru e ofOver l y b ei ng deni ed acce ss to new c lien ts . Th e in itia l p ro b lem w ith th is c on d u c t b ein g e vid en c e o f ret alia tio n is th at b y h e r ow n ad m iss ion O ve rly f a i l e d t o me n t i o n i ti n h e rA u g u s t7w r i t t e n c o mpla i nt despi te bei n g deni ed acce ss to cl i ents w hen th e r e a s s i g n me n to c c ur r e d o n A u g u s t1
. Mo r e i mport antl y, ther e i s no ev i dence fro m wh i ch to i nfe r that O ver l y was de ni ed ac ce ss t o c l i en ts b ec au se o fhe rs ex . As the r ec o rd shows, no o th era dvi so r s, i nc l udi ng ot h er fem ale ad vis or s, w er e d en ied a c c e s s to clie n ts . In fact, B iel ecki nev er m en tioned or d iscus sed Ov erly’ s com pla i nt.20 N o. 10

- 2705 The re cor d i s s i m plyvo i d o f t h e bi ts and piec es of ci rcum sta nti al evi dence necess ar y to est abl i sh a causal l i nk be tw een O verl y’ s co m pla i nt and Bie l ecki ’ s co nd uct. As a r es ul t, the di st r i ctc o urt p rop er l y g r an te d Key Ban k s u mma r y j u d g me n to n O v e r l y ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.

I I I
. C ONCLUS I ON The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s there f or e A FFI RMED .

11- 10- 11