Opinion ID: 1863815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sex discrimination/retaliation.

Text: UPS contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Channon's sex discrimination and retaliation claims. UPS further contends that at a minimum the district court should have granted its motion for a new trial. In its marshalling instruction on Channon's sex discrimination claim, the district court instructed the jury that Channon had to prove that (1) on or after November 12, 1993 (the date of Olson's attack), UPS took adverse employment action against her and (2) Channon's sex was a motivating factor in UPS's decision. These are the elements of a Title VII sex discrimination claim. See Breeding v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 164 F.3d 1151, 1156 (8th Cir.1999). In its marshalling instruction on Channon's retaliation claim, the district court instructed the jury that Channon had to prove that (1) she engaged in activity protected under the civil rights law, (2) UPS took adverse employment action against her, and (3) there was a causal connection between her participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action taken. These are the elements of a retaliation claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Manning v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 686, 692 (8th Cir.1997) (To prevail on a retaliation claim brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), an employee must show that (1) she filed a charge of discrimination; (2) the employer subsequently took adverse employment action against her; and (3) the adverse action was causally linked to the filing of the charge of discrimination.) We note that retaliation may occur even though the employee has not filed a formal complaint. See Graham v. Texasgulf, Inc., 662 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (D.Conn.1987) (The protection afforded by Title VII against retaliation ... is not limited to individuals who have filed formal complaints ....); see also EEOC v. Ohio Edison Co., 7 F.3d 541, 543 (6th Cir.1993) (The statute makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because the employee opposed an unlawful employment practice, or made a charge, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to Title VII.). The range of protected activity includes an employee's informal complaint to management. Arzate v. City of Topeka, 884 F.Supp. 1494, 1503 (D.Kan.1995); see Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1308; Kotcher v. Rosa & Sullivan Appliance Ctr., 957 F.2d 59, 65 (2d Cir.1992). See generally Sias v. City Demonstration Agency, 588 F.2d 692 (9th Cir.1978). Here, the evidence supports a finding that Channon began complaining to UPS on the day of Olson's assault, which occurred on November 12, 1993. In another instruction, the court defined adverse employment action as an action that detrimentally affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Changes in duties or working conditions that cause no materially significant disadvantage to the employee are not adverse employment actions. This instruction correctly defined an adverse employment action. See Spring v. Sheboygan Area Sch. Dist., 865 F.2d 883, 885 (7th Cir.1989). In its motion for directed verdict, the only claim of insufficiency of the evidence that UPS raised was on the adverse employment action element of each claim: The record evidence with respect to employment decisions after November 12 of 1993 also indicates that Channon like many other UPS employees, was moved from position to position, and that while she disagreed with where she was placed in certain circumstances and wanted other jobs, that she was not in any way demoted, that she did not suffer any loss of salary or benefits, she continued to be paid as a two-unit manager and, in fact, was given raises throughout that period. So the evidence does not establish within the framework required under ... Title VII ... the kind of evidence of an adverse impact on terms or conditions of employment that is required under the law because these transfers and employment decisions did not in any way involve any loss of salary, and, in fact, she received raises, and did not involve any loss of benefits.... Changes in duties or working conditions that do not cause materially significant disadvantages are insufficient to establish the adverse conduct required to make a prima facie case. 1. Applicable law regarding adverse employment action. As one court has observed, [t]he question whether an employee has suffered a materially adverse employment action will normally depend on the facts of each situation. Bryson v. Chicago State Univ., 96 F.3d 912, 916 (7th Cir.1996). It follows then that a wide variety of actions, some blatant and some subtle, can qualify. Id. In Bryson, the court held there were disputed facts regarding a materially adverse employment action precluding summary judgment. In that case, there were facts showing that a tenured professor lost the title of Special Assistant to the Dean and she was banished from university committee work. Finding that these facts were sufficient to raise a fact issue as to the requirement of adverse employment action, the court stated: The title, for example, would communicate to others both within the State Colleges and Universities system and outside it what kind of responsibilities had been entrusted to her. Committee work, especially on important committees like Budget and Retention, is often a prelude to an administrative career. [Plaintiff] herself, it is undisputed, had been on a promising job track for such a career.... A sudden loss of all committee responsibilities and the stripping of a title one formerly held (when similar titles continued to be used throughout the university), if proven at trial, would be a loss of tangible employment benefits just as serious as moving an office to an undesirable location, relocating someone's personal files, or isolating the employee from othersall actions courts have held to qualify under Title VII in other cases.... The [trial] court erred in assuming that nothing happened to [plaintiff] because she had not yet applied for a deanship. Depriving someone of the building blocks for such a promotion, if that is what a trier of fact thinks Chicago State did, is just as serious as depriving her of the job itself. Bryson, 96 F.3d at 916-17; see also Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 73, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 2736, 111 L.Ed.2d 52, 65 (1990) (holding that adverse employment action can result where employees find themselves in dead-end positions because of unlawful discrimination). Other forms of adverse employment action include disciplinary demotion, termination, unjustified evaluations and reports, loss of normal work assignments, and extension of probationary period. McKenzie v. Atl. Richfield Co., 906 F.Supp. 572, 575 (D.Colo.1995). Courts have held that an adverse employment action can result even without loss of money or benefits. For example, in Collins v. State, the court found an adverse employment action when the employer transferred a library employee to a new department where her supervisors were unsure of her new responsibilities and authority, she was largely relegated to reference rather than consulting work, and she had lost her office and telephone. 830 F.2d 692, 703 (7th Cir.1987). In McCabe v. Sharrett, the court found an employee suffered adverse employment action where plaintiff had been transferred to a new job where she had fewer responsibilities, was made to perform more menial tasks, and had lesser opportunity for salary increases than in her former job. 12 F.3d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir.1994); see also de la Cruz v. New York City Human Res. Admin., 82 F.3d 16, 21 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that transfer from elite division, which provided prestige and opportunity for advancement to a less prestigious unit, with little opportunity for professional growth constituted adverse employment action even though units were equal in status); Goodwin v. Cir. Ct., 729 F.2d 541, 547 (8th Cir.1984) (holding that a transfer, with the same pay, from a position as a hearing officer to that of a staff attorney was adverse because the new position was less prestigious). Adverse employment action can occur even when the alleged action happens to result in an increase in pay. See, e.g., Davis v. City of Sioux City, 115 F.3d 1365, 1368 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that employee's transfer to higher paying position after she complained of supervisor's sexual harassment was adverse employment action because position lacked supervisory status, had fewer opportunities for salary increases, and offered [plaintiff] little opportunity for advancement). 2. Analysis. The district court found that Channon had established her state civil right claims of (1) sexual discrimination in employment and (2) retaliation. See Iowa Code §§ 216.6(1) (providing that it is an unfair or discriminatory practice for an employer to refuse to hire, classify, discharge, or otherwise discriminate in employment because of the sex of the employee), .11(2) (providing that it is an unfair or discriminatory practice for [a]ny person to discriminate or retaliate against another person in any of the rights protected against discrimination by this chapter because such person has lawfully opposed any practice forbidden under this chapter, obeys the provisions of this chapter, or has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter). To establish her state claims of sexual discrimination and retaliation, Channon had to prove the same elements as for her sexual discrimination and retaliatory claims under Title VII. Therefore, under the state discrimination and retaliatory claims, as with the Title VII discrimination and retaliatory claims, Channon had to prove that she suffered an adverse employment action. The district court made detailed findings on Channon's state claims following the jury verdict on the federal claims. As mentioned, these findings were based on the same evidence that the jury heard. We note that UPS does not challenge here the findings the district court made on the state claims. As mentioned, the district court awarded Channon the same damages as the jury awarded on the federal claims. a. The district court's findings on the adverse employment action element of the state sexual discrimination claim. The district court made the following findings on the adverse employment action element of the state sexual discrimination claim which we find are supported in the record and which establish the adverse employment action element for the Title VII sexual discrimination claim: Following the November 12, 1993 Olson incident, Channon was transferred from manager of the pre-load to human resources to work in compliance reporting to a two-unit manager. Channon was transferred to operations in Des Moines and Burlington for peak season, 1994. Channon was assigned to the special projects team in the spring of 1995. Channon was then transferred to the midnight hub to fill a one-unit supervisor's position. While Channon retained the title, salary and benefits of a two-unit manager, these employment actions constitute constructive demotion because she did not occupy a two-unit manager's position from May 9, 1994 when she was removed from the pre-load until January 1996 when she took over the twilight sort. On January 6, 1996, Channon became the manager of the twilight sort. She remained in that position until she took inactive status March 1, 1996. Channon was repeatedly stalked and harassed by Olson with no assistance from Warner and Douglas. She was ridiculed and berated as weak by Douglas. She was excluded from meetings. She was passed over for the quality coordinator team and the compliance manager's job. Channon was paid less than Dan Gannon and other similarly situated male two-unit managers. Most importantly, Channon fell off the mental list of district manager Clark because of misinformation communicated to Clark by Douglas and Warner. Clark determined Channon had no verticality in industrial engineering. Since Channon was not on Clark's mental list of people in line for promotion to division manager, Clark was simply trying to find a place to put her when he moved her to the twilight sort. [T]he actions of Douglas, Warner, and particularly Clark went far beyond purely lateral transfers. They were not trivial. They involved more than minor changes in working conditions. The actions of Douglas, Warner, and Clark were more disruptive than mere inconveniences or alterations of responsibilities. When Channon fell off Clark's mental list, she was placed at a materially significant disadvantage. Channon proved the action of UPS materially altered the terms or conditions of her employment.... b. The district court's findings on the adverse employment action element of the state retaliation claim. The district court made the following findings on the adverse employment action element for the state retaliation claim which we find are supported by the evidence and which establish the adverse employment action element for the Title VII retaliation claim: Channon had a right to complain to her superiors about Olson's boorish behavior. She had a right to consult counsel about her remedies under state and federal law. Channon had a right to file a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. She had a right to pursue her remedies by filing this action. Channon proved her superiors, Warner, Douglas, Clark, and Haas, took adverse employment action against her [because of these complaints] in the form of ridicule, constructive demotion, and lack of support in the face of open hostility about her lawsuit. On April 4, 1994, when Channon tried to explain her problems with Olson to Douglas, he called her weak, cruelly said in a high-pitched voice help me, help me and told her to rip Olson's face off. Channon consulted counsel on May 6, 1994. It is no coincidence that on May 9, 1994, after discussing the matter with Clark, Douglas transferred Channon to human resources. On June 24, 1994, Warner discussed Channon's complaints with her and warned her she could be fired for knowing other employees' salaries. Channon filed this lawsuit on June 9, 1995. In early July, Clark passed Channon over for the compliance manager's job. On the twilight sort, Goecke refused to meet with Channon alone on the advice of an attorney who turns out to be a relative of his. He told Channon her lawsuit made him sick because it takes food off his table and she should not sue her partners. Haas tolerated Goecke's conduct because he agreed with him. Haas excluded Channon from meetings and disclosed to Goecke that Channon was hanging on by a thread.