Opinion ID: 1004508
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Transfer to Lexington

Text: Finally, Cleary asserts that Nationwide failed to post an opening at Lexington, and refused her request to fill the vacancy once she learned of it anyway, as a retaliatory measure. To bolster her contention, Cleary relies on evidence that Betts consulted Blakewood about this request, and that Blakewood was heavily involved in the Herlong harassment investigation. Nationwide contends that Betts declined to transfer Cleary back to Lexington because of her previous complaints about the workload there and because of a perceived improvement in Cleary’s performance following her reassignment to Gateway. Betts consulted Blakewood about this decision in an effort to ensure that all procedures were properly followed[.] Appellee’s Br., at 13 (citation omitted). Though Nationwide does not explain why the position was not advertised in accordance with company policy, Cleary offers no eviCLEARY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. 15 dence to support her theory that this was aimed at depriving her of the position, or to explain why she would have been entitled to the job if the posting policy had been followed. Further, Cleary relies on the mere fact that Betts consulted Blakewood about Cleary’s transfer request as proof of discrimination, without offering evidence that Betts was not merely pursuing the normal course for ensuring adherence to the law and company policy.