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

Heading: Closeness of supervision

Text: Barber alleges he was subjected to closer supervision than other employees at C1. [A]n employer's selective investigation of an employee in a protected group can support a claim of discriminatory intent. Wierman, 638 F.3d at 997. To succeed in showing pretext, however, the employee must provide some evidence that other employees were not subject to the same level of investigation for similar conduct. Id. at 997-98. Barber testified that during the January 15, 2008, meeting, Simpson told him she would be watching his job performance very closely. Simpson testified that she meant she would be evaluating all employees in her new supervisory position. Barber has offered no evidence either connecting this statement to a racial motive, or showing that Simpson's supervision of others was lax in comparison. Simpson's statement that she would be watching Barber closely does not, by itself, permit a reasonable inference of discriminatory animus. Roeben v. BG Excelsior Ltd. P'ship, 545 F.3d 639, 643 (8th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Barber also argues that Simpson and Megard pressured C1 employees to make false or misleading statements. According to Moore, Tami [Simpson] was always coming around making everyone write statements about this thing that Ray [Barber] said or that thing that Ray [Barber] did. There was real pressure to write the things she wanted us to write and be supportive of the company. (App. 395) The record reflects that Simpson regularly collects witness statements to document interactions she has with C1 employees. (App. 532) Barber has not demonstrated that he received any attention that was in any way more intensive, more frequent, or otherwise unprecedented when compared to other employees, regardless of their race. Wierman, 638 F.3d at 998.