Opinion ID: 613904
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Simpson's treatment of Barber

Text: Barber next argues that a series of low level incidents and mistreatment after the promotion show pretext. For example, Simpson moved his desk from an office into a small classroom while he was on vacation; Simpson treated him with a rude and sour attitude; and Simpson assigned him do a round of drug-testing alone. Moving Barber's desk is not materially adverse employment action because it is the kind of annoyance or petty slight that we have held does not constitute actionable harm for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case. Fercello, 612 F.3d at 1078-79; see Gilbert v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll., 495 F.3d 906, 918 (8th Cir.2007) (Gilbert's assignment to a cubicle near a smoked glass security dome following his demotion did not constitute an adverse employment action.); Zhuang v. Datacard Corp., 414 F.3d 849, 854-56 (8th Cir.2005). We therefore conclude that the petty slight of moving his desk into a classroom does not show pretext. See Sprenger v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 253 F.3d 1106, 1111 (8th Cir. 2001) (An employee's attempt to prove pretext or actual discrimination requires more substantial evidence [than required to make a prima facie case], however, because unlike evidence establishing the prima facie case, evidence of pretext and discrimination is viewed in light of the employer's justification.). Similarly, the allegation that Simpson treated Barber with a rude and sour attitude does not support an inference of discriminatory animus. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (Title VII ... does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Finally, the fact that Barber was, on one occasion, asked to complete a job usually conducted by two people, is not relevant to his termination. That Simpson once told Moore she wished she could fire Barber but that she could not do so because C1 feared a lawsuit also falls short of showing pretext. It is clear that Barber and Simpson did not get along and that Barber repeatedly invoked the EEOC and threatened to sue C1, but personality conflicts at work that generate antipathy are not actionable. Id. (quoting 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 669 (3d ed. 1996)). Moreover, there is no indication in Moore's affidavit or elsewhere that Simpson sought to terminate Barber based on race, rather than because of her documented concerns about his behavior. Barber has not satisfied his ultimate burden, of demonstrating he was fired because of his race. [9]