Opinion ID: 172046
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grooming/Quid Pro Quo Argument

Text: The undisputed facts do not allow for a reasonable inference that Mr. Martinez was grooming Ms. Pinkerton for sexual favors. To survive summary judgment with a grooming/quid pro quo argument, [4] Ms. Pinkerton must show that a reasonable jury could find Mr. Martinez conditioned concrete employment benefits on her submission to sexual conduct and had her fired when she did not comply. Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1413-14 (10th Cir.1987); see Conatzer v. Med. Prof'l Bldg. Svcs. Corp., 95 Fed.Appx. 276, 279 (10th Cir.2004) (unpublished). The gravamen of a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim is that tangible job benefits are conditioned on an employee's submission to conduct of a sexual nature and that adverse job consequences result from the employee's refusal to submit to the conduct. Hicks, 833 F.2d at 1414. Here, as in Hicks, the record fails to support any suggestion that Ms. Pinkerton's employment was conditioned on sexual favors. See id. Ms. Pinkerton herself admitted that Mr. Martinez never asked for sex, and she even denied suggesting that Mr. Martinez sought to manufacture bad evaluations so that he would be able to sexually harass her. Although Ms. Pinkerton argues that the mere fact her performance evaluation changed from net positive to net negative under Mr. Martinez shows that she was being groomed for sexual favors, she never explains why this change was not warrantedand no reasonable trier of fact could escape Ms. Pinkerton's history of under-performance at CDOT. The undisputed evidence shows that Ms. Pinkerton was failing to comply with the objective performance criteria that Ms. Pinkerton wanted used for her evaluation. Even Ms. Pinkerton acknowledges that Mr. Martinez's objective evaluations were supported by documentation and were based in large part on the reports of other individuals. Ms. Pinkerton also received complaints directly from engineers about her performance, in addition to those that Mr. Martinez informed her about. Moreover, the record reflects that prior supervisors had identified performance issues like those that Mr. Martinez later identified-including co-worker relations, familiarity with procedures, timeliness, and prioritizing of tasks. Mr. Ellis, a neutral observer, also testified that Ms. Pinkerton's performance declined once she was transferred to Mr. Martinez's supervision. In short, nothing more than speculation suggests that Mr. Martinez, the soon-to-be harasser, manufactured poor evaluations in order to groom the harassed individual for sexual favors and fired her when she did not comply. Rather, the evidence shows that multiple individuals observed that Ms. Pinkerton failed to meet her clearly established, objective IPOs in the months leading up to October 2002at which time Ms. Pinkerton herself knew that her performance had placed her job in jeopardy. Thus, we do not have a situation where negative performance reviews, generated to secure sexual favors, culminated in a tangible employment action.