Circuit Judge Evans died on August 10, 2011, and did not 

participate in the decision of this case, which is being resolved

by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. §46(d).

The Honorable William M. Conley, United States District



Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 10-2705

KRYSTEN A. OVERLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

KEY INVESTMENT SERVICES LLC AND

KEYCORP INSURANCE AGENCY USA (WA), et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:08-cv-00662-SEB-TAB—Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

ARGUED JUNE 3, 2011—DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 2011

Before EVANS , WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CONLEY,



District Judge.


2 No. 10-2705

CONLEY, District Judge. Krysten Overly sued her employer Key Investment Services LLC, its parent company

and several of its affiliates (collectively “KeyBank”) in

Indiana state court for allegedly discriminating based on

her gender and retaliating against her because of her

complaints of gender discrimination in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. KeyBank removed the case to federal court and later filed a motion

for summary judgment on both the discrimination and

retaliation claims. The district court granted that

motion and entered final judgment in favor of KeyBank.

On appeal, Overly argues the district court erred in

entering summary judgment because genuine issues of

material fact remained regarding whether she was discriminated and retaliated against, subjected to a hostile

work environment and constructively discharged because of her gender and for complaining about gender

discrimination. Finding no disputed issues of genuine

fact material to Overly’s claims of gender discrimination or retaliation, and agreeing with the district court’s

reasons for granting KeyBank’s summary judgment

motion, that judgment will be affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

Because Overly’s claims were decided on summary

judgment, we view all facts in the light most favorable

to Overly—the non-moving party—and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634 F.3d

942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
No. 10-2705 3

A. Overly’s Use of Scanned Signatures

Overly became a financial advisor with the

McDonald Financial Group in 2004. A couple years

later, she accepted a similar position with KeyBank,

providing financial advice to clients at several of its

Central Indiana branches. Initially, Overly’s direct supervisor was Andrew Moulton, the regional sales

manager for KeyBank’s Central Indiana territories.

Moulton resigned in January 2007. Rick Bielecki became

Overly’s new regional sales manager in March 2007.

Even though he was her direct supervisor, Bielecki

usually only interacted or met with Overly once a

month because of his supervisory responsibilities for

multiple territories.

Upon becoming regional sales manager, Bielecki

would “ride-along” with financial advisors under his

supervision in the Central Indiana branches to observe

how they conducted business. During a ride-along

with Overly on April 12, 2007, Overly explained the

procedures used in opening new client accounts. One

procedure that came to light was Overly’s reliance

on her scanned, as opposed to in-person, signatures in

executing account documents. Overly explained that

Bielecki’s predecessor Moulton had suggested that her

assistant, Carol Cooney, paste Overly’s scanned signature on client documents to “speed up” the opening of

accounts on those occasions when Overly could not be

at the specific branch immediately to sign the document.

Overly had apparently used this procedure approximately twenty times over the previous year and was
4 No. 10-2705

the only financial advisor to do so. Overly also encouraged bankers to sell investment products outside

KeyBank’s product menu without Overly being there

to supervise.

B. Compliance Office Investigation and Recommendation

Following their ride-along, Bielecki told Overly to

stop using her scanned signature to open accounts

until he looked into the policy further. Bielecki then

reported to KeyBank’s compliance office that Overly

used scanned or “cut and pasted” signatures. Bielecki

also reported that Overly encouraged bankers to sell offmenu products. This report triggered an investigation.

The compliance office told Bielecki to make certain

both procedures stopped. Bielecki reiterated this to his

entire staff, reminding them that in opening new

accounts each financial advisor should personally sign

a new account application before submitting it.

The next day, Overly spoke with Bielecki and his boss,

Wally DePasquale, the general regional manager. During

this conversation, Overly was told that using scanned

signatures and advising bankers to sell outside the

product list were both improper procedures. Overly

was asked if any other financial advisors in the territory

followed similar practices. Although she did not know

of anyone personally, Overly mentioned being told

that Kirk Green, also a financial advisor, failed to meet

with some clients before signing paperwork to open
No. 10-2705 5

Overly also mentioned an “Exception List” that was created 1

so certain bankers who completed the necessary course

would be authorized to sell additional financial products.

Apparently, the bankers working with Green were not on the

list and should not have been opening certain kinds of

accounts without him. Although Overly continually refers to

the “Exception List” as the same thing as her using a

scanned signature, the list was considered different and

apart from Overly’s use of a scanned signature.

new accounts.1

Bielecki reported Overly’s allegations about Green to

the compliance office. He also questioned Green about

procedures used to open accounts. Green denied that

he ever signed new account paperwork without first

meeting the customer. The compliance office told Bielecki

to remind his employees, including Green, about the

company policy requiring advisors to be present with

the customer when signing an account document.

As part of their investigation, the compliance office

and Bielecki also contacted bankers working with Overly

to ask them about selling financial products outside

KeyBank’s product menu. One banker admitted making

unauthorized sales of variable annuity products without Overly’s assistance.

After its investigation, the compliance office recommended that Overly be terminated. Bielecki and

DePasquale challenged the recommendation, arguing

that Overly should remain employed at KeyBank. Later

in the month of May, Overly was given a formal written
6 No. 10-2705

warning from the compliance office and a $1000 fine

for violations of the fraud and “Know Your Client”

policies at KeyBank and the National Association of

Securities Dealers Rule 2310. Additionally, a male

banker who admitted to selling variable annuities in

violation of KeyBank policy was fined $100.

C. Overly’s Problems with Bielecki

At the end of May 2007, Overly contacted Marcia

Hopkins, in KeyBank’s human resources department,

about the disciplinary actions taken against her by KeyBank, as well as sexist remarks she attributed to

Bielecki. Overly explained that Bielecki had called her

“cutie” between 5 and 10 times, though stopped after

Overly told him she was not his cutie. Also, in an email,

Bielecki stated that it would be better for Overly and

Jennifer Miller, a junior advisor, to go to a golf outing

because “your pretty faces are much better than my

ugly mug.” Bielecki also required Overly to leave her

planner and purse outside the room when having an

office meeting.

Overly expressed concern that the discipline she had

received would be marked on her license and hurt

her chances for future employment. Hopkins advised

Overly that KeyBank had put the issue behind it and that

she should do likewise. When Overly continued to ask

about the discipline, Hopkins offered to talk with

DePasquale, but Overly did not want to involve him.

Hopkins suggested that Overly should keep her “head
No. 10-2705 7

down and just go back to work and act as though everything’s fine.”

D. Realignment of Financial Advisors

During the summer of 2007, KeyBank’s president,

Mark Vosen, began implementing a company-wide

business plan to increase the number of financial advisors throughout the country. The goal was to enable

sales teams to serve more effectively by reducing the

number of bank branches each advisor would serve. KeyBank set the goal of trying to rearrange territories so that

each advisor was responsible for four or five branches

with between $125 million and $150 million in core deposits. In January 2006, KeyBank had 81 advisors and, by

January 2010, the number had increased to 211 nationwide.

As the regional sales manager, Bielecki was responsible for the realignment of advisors in his region. In

addition to realigning territories, Bielecki informed the

Central Indiana region that a new financial advisor,

Shaun Weyer, had been hired. With the inclusion of

Weyer as an advisor, the Central Indiana region consisted of 6 advisors: Overly, Weyer, Doug Ferry, Kirk

Green, Deb Bohannon and Marshall Byers. After the

realignment, Ferry was responsible for 5 branches with

a core deposit base of $186,027,005; Bohannon was responsible for 5 branches with a core deposit base of

$110,798,221; Green was responsible for 5 branches with a

core deposit base of $147,617,964; Byers was responsible

for 7 branches with a core deposit base of $101,335,781;
8 No. 10-2705

Weyer was responsible for 6 branches with a core

deposit base of $139,416,285; and Overly was responsible for 6 branches with a core deposit base of

$147,179,571.

As the result of this realignment of territories, Overly

lost 3 of her old branches and gained 2 new ones. Overly

was upset by the realignment because she had worked

hard to build-up the lost territories. According to

Jennifer Miller, the junior advisor working under

Overly, the realignment appeared to provide Weyer

with all the best branches and to divide up the

territories “so that everyone was driving to inconvenient locations, except Shaun.”

E. Overly’s Formal Complaint

On August 7, 2007, Overly sent a letter to KeyBank’s

CEO alleging that she had been discriminated and retaliated against in the form of (1) the disciplinary warning

she received, (2) being called “cutie,” and (3) the loss

of territory. Two days later, Yolanda Johnson, from

KeyBank’s human resource department, informed Overly

that her allegations would be investigated. Overly was

sent a letter on August 22, 2007, informing her that the

investigation had been concluded. The letter advised

Overly that the investigation had found no evidence of

discrimination or retaliation. Instead, the investigation

found the discipline Overly received was warranted in

light of her improper use of a scanned signature. Further,

it concluded that Bielecki’s calling her “cutie,” while
No. 10-2705 9

Although not listed in her complaint letter, Overly also 2

began having trouble accessing new client information after

the August 1, 2007, territory realignment. As a result, Overly

was forced to ask her assistant, Carol Cooney, to obtain

new client information for her.

Since April 2007, Overly had been researching the possibility 3

of starting her own financial advising business.

inappropriate, would not occur in the future. Finally,

Overly was informed that the realignment in her

district was done in accordance with the company’s

nationwide business plan.

2

F. Overly’s Resignation

After Overly received the investigation letter at the end

of August, she saw Bielecki only once over the next

month and they exchanged maybe 5 to 6 emails. Both

Overly and Bielecki attended a symposium at the end

of September, but did not speak.

Upon returning from the symposium, Overly personally submitted her resignation letter to Bielecki on

October 1, 2007. Upon receiving the letter, Bielecki applauded and grabbed Overly’s arm to push her out the

door. Overly yelled twice at Bielecki to get his hands off

her. As Overly left Bielecki’s office, he yelled “Good

Riddance Bitch.” After her resignation, Overly began

working at her own business, Prosperity Financial Advisors.3
10 No. 10-2705

Two weeks after her resignation, Overly filed a

complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that she suffered discrimination and retaliation at KeyBank because of her gender.

On January 31, 2008, the EEOC issued her a right to sue

letter. On March 14, 2008, Overly filed a second complaint with the EEOC, making similar discrimination and

retaliation charges against KeyBank. The EEOC issued

her a second right to sue letter on November 24, 2008.

II. ANALYSIS

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts in a light most favorable

to Overly. Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679, 683 (7th

Cir. 2010). Even under this lenient standard, however,

Overly has not met her burden of proving her employer discriminated on the basis of her gender in

violation of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Because

Overly advances Title VII claims for a hostile work environment, constructive discharge and sex discrimination,

we address each in turn.

A. Title VII Sexual-Harassment Claim

1. Hostile work environment

Overly claims that she was subjected to a hostile work

environment after Bielecki became her supervisor. To

survive KeyBank’s summary judgment motion on this

claim, Overly must demonstrate that: “(1) her work
No. 10-2705 11

environment was both objectively and subjectively offensive; (2) the harassment complained of was based

on her gender; (3) the conduct was either severe or pervasive; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.” Scruggs

v. Garst Seed Co., 587 F.3d 832, 840 (7th Cir. 2009).

In determining whether the sexist conditions of employment are severe or pervasive enough to create “an

abusive working environment,” we consider “the

severity of the allegedly discriminatory conduct, its

frequency, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or merely offensive, and whether it unreasonably

interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id.

The conditions Overly worked under while Bielecki

acted as her supervisor between April and September 2007 simply do not meet this standard.

While both inappropriate and condescending, Bielecki

referring to Overly as “cutie” 5 to 10 times over the

course of two months is not sufficiently severe or

pervasive to create a hostile work environment by itself,

especially since it is undisputed that Bielecki stopped

when asked. Further, Bielecki’s single statement that

Overly’s and another female co-worker’s “pretty faces”

would better represent KeyBank at a golf outing than

his “ugly mug” is not objectively offensive, even if

Overly may have found it subjectively so. Indeed, nothing

Bielecki is alleged to have done because of Overly’s

gender, taken individually or as a whole, can be viewed

as threatening or humiliating, much less frequent

enough, to have unreasonably interfered with her work

performance. Accepting as true for purposes of summary

judgment that Bielecki also made Overly leave her purse
12 No. 10-2705

and planner outside of a meeting, that one-time act is

also not sufficiently severe or frequent to meet the

Scruggs standard.

Perhaps a combination of all of these incidents, along

with the discipline Overly received for using a scanned

signature, might have approached this level, but Overly

has offered no evidence to permit a reasonable jury to

find the discipline was based on anything other than a

violation of KeyBank policy. Although Overly asks us to

“infer” that the discipline was gender-related, such an

inference is not reasonably supported by the record. As

such, we need not accept it. See, e.g., Omnicare, Inc. v.

UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2011).

(“Even on summary judgment, district courts are not

required to draw every requested inference; they must

only draw reasonable ones that are supported by the

record.”).

Overly readily admitted to being the only financial

advisor to use scanned signatures in violation of written

policy; she was disciplined accordingly. Regardless of

what Overly’s previous supervisor had told her, there

is no dispute that the procedure violated KeyBank’s

written policy, as evidenced by the fact that no other

advisors were using scanned signatures. Even accepting

Overly’s secondhand information that a co-worker engaged in some other improper conduct was not disciplined after denying engaging in it does not make

reasonable an inference that Overly was disciplined

because she is a woman.

Similarly, Overly has failed to offer evidence sufficient

for a reasonable jury to find the realignment of territories
No. 10-2705 13

was gender-based. Every financial advisor in the

Central Indiana region received reassigned territories as

a result of the company’s undisputed business plan to

add more financial advisors in an effort to increase

client services. At most, the evidence in the record

creates an inference that Bielecki rearranged the territory

to favor Shaun Weyer at the inconvenience of all other

advisors, both male and female, but such preferential

treatment is evidence of favoritism, not sexism.

The financial figures offered by Overly are, if anything,

even less supportive of her claim of gender-based discrimination. Overly estimates that she would lose approximately $100,000 over the next year as a result of the

realignment. This is based on the fact that between

January 2007 and August 2007, she had earned $172,374.94,

which averaged out to approximately $22,575.12 per

month, and the fact that she then received a check in

October from sales in September 2007 that totaled

$8,226.02. However, this figure is of little, if any, evidentiary value in determining the likely financial impact of

realignment on Overly’s pay. This is because Overly

provides no actual, monthly earnings, leaving no way of

determining whether the October amount is anomalous,

much less whether the asserted drop in income was

likely to continue over time. Overly’s comparison of a

single month’s performance against a seven months’

average also fails to account for month-to-month fluctuations, nor did she provide how much she would have

earned from her old territories. In the end, one could only

speculate wildly about the actual financial effect of the
14 No. 10-2705

Even assuming Overly was earning less after the reassign- 4

ment, there is nothing in the record to show she took a disproportionate hit financially than did her male counterparts. At most,

the evidence provided by Overly proves she would receive a

reduced slice of the income pie, but this is hardly surprising

given that the company added an additional advisor to serve

the same number of sale territories. 

realignment from the limited information Overly

provided.4

The conduct coming closest to suggesting interference

with Overly’s work performance is her loss of access

to new client information after the reassignment of territories. According to Overly at least, she was denied

access to new client information between August and

September, forcing her to seek this information through

her assistant. There is, however, no evidence from which

a reasonable jury could infer that the limitation was a

mere annoyance resulting from the realignment process,

as opposed to an intentional and unreasonable interference motivated by gender bias. In fact, although the

problems with accessing new clients began occurring

when the reassignment of territories went into effect

on August 1, Overly did not include the problem in

her letter to KeyBank management informing them of

the discrimination and retaliation she claimed to be experiencing. Further, Overly never mentioned the problem to human resources, even though she was discussing her discrimination and retaliation allegations

with them during the month of August.
No. 10-2705 15

Even assuming that the conduct was an unreasonable,

intentional interference, there is no evidence to suggest

the conduct was the result of gender discrimination.

While both Overly and her assistant stated that she was

the only advisor who was denied access to client information, Overly was not the only woman advisor, suggesting that the conduct was the result of personal animus

toward Overly, rather than gender-based animus. Ultimately, this evidence is only speculation that the

conduct was the result of gender discrimination and

reliance on speculation is not enough to get the case to

a jury. See Davis v. Carter, 452 F.3d 686, 697 (7th Cir.

2006) (explaining that “when the evidence provides for

only speculation or guessing, summary judgment is

appropriate”).

By far the most disturbing evidence of gender bias

comes after Overly had already resigned, but this cannot

establish a hostile environment before her resignation.

While it is unacceptable for a person to grab another in

the workplace without permission, much less to refer

to a woman as a “bitch,” Bielecki’s actions do not

satisfy Overly’s burden to prove she suffered objectively severe and pervasive gender discrimination while

working for KeyBank. In fact, Overly admits that she

had very little face-to-face interaction with Bielecki

during the six months he supervised her. At most, they

met once a month. The fact that Bielecki acted wrongly

after Overly resigned does not serve as evidence of a

hostile work environment while working at KeyBank.

Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Overly’s hostile work environment claim

was proper.
16 No. 10-2705

2. Constructive Discharge

To prevail on her claim of constructive discharge, Overly

would have had to advance evidence “even more

egregious than that needed for a hostile work environment such that [s]he was forced to resign because [her]

working conditions from the standpoint of the reasonable employee had become unbearable.” Thompson v.

Mem’l Hosp. of Carbondale, 625 F.3d 394, 401-02 (7th Cir.

2010) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, Overly’s failure

to advance evidence sufficient to find a hostile work

environment claim also dooms her constructive discharge claim.

3. Discrimination

Finally, Overly claims discrimination based on her

gender, purportedly proceeding under what has (somewhat inaccurately) been denominated as the “direct

method” of proof. “A plaintiff may prove discrimination using the direct method by establishing either an

acknowledgment of discriminatory intent or circumstantial evidence that provides the basis for an inference

of intentional discrimination.” Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp.,

472 F.3d 930, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). Overly does neither.

Despite Overly’s argument to the contrary, Bielecki’s

patently offensive response to Overly’s resignation is not

direct evidence of gender discrimination. Some additional evidence would be required for that statement to

be regarded by a reasonable jury as a confession that

any previous, adverse conduct was taken for a discrim-
No. 10-2705 17

inatory purpose. See Lim v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 297 F.3d

575, 580 (7th Cir. 2002) (requiring” direct evidence” to

“prove the particular fact in question without reliance

upon inference or presumption”) (internal quotation

and emphasis omitted). For example, if the term “bitch”

were uttered as an explanation for contemporaneously

singling out Overly from her male counterparts for loss

of pay, territory, benefits or opportunity, then no inference would be required. As already discussed, Overly

has offered no such evidence here.

The statement is also not circumstantial evidence of

discrimination, since it was neither made around the

time of any adverse employment actions, nor references

any adverse employment actions (like the discipline

letter Overly received back in May). Instead, however

offensive, the statement was a stray remark made after

Overly resigned. See Nichols v. S. Ill. Univ.-Edwardsville,

510 F.3d 772, 781-82 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding “stray

remarks that are neither proximate nor related to the

employment decision [at issue] are insufficient to defeat

summary judgment) (internal citation and quotation

marks omitted”); see also Merillat v. Metal Spinners, Inc.,

470 F.3d 685, 694 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding “isolated comments that are no more than ‘stray remarks’ in the workplace are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus”).

As discussed above in the context of Overly’s hostile

work environment claim, there is a general lack of other

circumstantial evidence from which to infer that any of

Bielecki’s conduct—such as his reassigning of Overly’s

territories, temporarily being denied access to client
18 No. 10-2705

accounts, or reporting her to the compliance office—was

the result of intentional, gender-based discrimination.

The only alleged, gender-related comment was Bielecki

calling Overly “cutie,” something by all accounts

he stopped when told she did not like its use. Moreover,

its use is not linked to or contemporaneous with any

adverse employment action.

Although viewing the facts in a light most favorable to

Overly suggest that Bielecki may not have liked her, and

even that he may have been making her life at KeyBank

more difficult, those same facts do not support a reasonable inference that he did not like her because she

is female. Simply put, there are no bits and pieces of

circumstantial evidence that “point directly to a discriminatory reason for [Bielecki’s] action.” Petts v. Rockledge

Furniture LLC, 534 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal

quotation omitted). Accordingly, the district court was

correct in granting KeyBank’s motion for summary judgment on Overly’s claim for gender discrimination.

B. Title VII Retaliation Claim

To have survived summary judgment on her retaliation claim using the direct method, Overly needed to

show “(1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity;

(2) she suffered an adverse employment action taken by

the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the

two.” Kodl v. Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. 45, Villa Park, 490 F.3d

558, 562 (7th Cir. 2007). The parties agree, as do we, that

Overly’s complaint to KeyBank’s HR department about

Bielecki’s alleged sexual harassment is a protected
No. 10-2705 19

activity under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The problem remains with Overly’s

inability to show that Bielecki took any adverse action

against her because of her complaint.

Overly points to the reassignment of some of her territories as evidence of retaliation. No reasonable jury,

however, could find that the reassignment was because

of Overly’s complaint. Instead, the reassignment was in

line with KeyBank’s national business plan to hire more

financial advisors and assign fewer territories to each

advisor. There is not even evidence that at the conclusion of the reassignment of territories within the

Central Indiana region, Overly’s new territories made

her any worse off than the other advisors in the region. Even the junior advisor working for Overly noted

that the reassignment appeared bothersome for everyone—except for the newly-hired advisor—who unsurprisingly was a former colleague of Bielecki.

The same is true of Overly being denied access to new

clients. The initial problem with this conduct being evidence of retaliation is that by her own admission Overly

failed to mention it in her August 7 written complaint despite being denied access to clients when

the reassignment occurred on August 1. More importantly, there is no evidence from which to infer that

Overly was denied access to clients because of her sex.

As the record shows, no other advisors, including

other female advisors, were denied access to clients. In

fact, Bielecki never mentioned or discussed Overly’s

complaint.
20 No. 10-2705

The record is simply void of the bits and pieces of

circumstantial evidence necessary to establish a causal

link between Overly’s complaint and Bielecki’s conduct.

As a result, the district court properly granted KeyBank

summary judgment on Overly’s retaliation claim.

III. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

11-10-11