Monica Kindred v. Northome/Indus Schl.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 97-2872

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; August 21, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Monica Kindred appealed a summary judgment favoring Northome/Indus. School District No. 363, asserting discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act due to the denial of premium pay for driving a reconfigured bus route. Kindred, a full-time bus driver since 1982, previously drove the long East Route, which provided premium pay. The District planned to eliminate this route, saving costs and removing the need for premium pay, coinciding with the retirement of the male driver. The Union agreed to the route changes, effective for the 1992-93 school year. When assigned to the Wildwood-Mizpah Route, which included parts of the East Route, Kindred sought premium pay but was denied after an investigation found her route met the time limits set in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In contrast, another female driver, Norma Ulrich, received premium pay after her route exceeded the CBA time limits. The Court affirmed the District's decision, concluding there was no discrimination against Kindred.

On March 19, 1993, Kindred filed a complaint with the EEOC against the District, alleging age and sex discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII. Kindred claimed she was assigned a longer route without additional pay and received no waiting time or activity trip pay. She alleged gender-based discrimination and harassment by Schuster, who she accused of treating her unfairly compared to younger male drivers. After receiving a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC on August 21, 1995, Kindred filed a lawsuit on November 14, 1995. In her deposition, she described Schuster's aggressive behavior, including verbal harassment and excessive supervision during her route. Another witness, Goede, reported Schuster making derogatory comments about women. Schuster justified the route assignment by citing Kindred's familiarity with the area. Kindred contested the District's claims about route changes being necessary for cost savings and argued that her route's mileage warranted premium pay, especially compared to other routes. The District countered that other longer routes did not earn premium pay. On June 2, 1997, a magistrate judge granted summary judgment to the District on all claims, which Kindred appealed only regarding gender-based wage discrimination. The review of the summary judgment is de novo, focusing on whether Kindred can establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, which requires showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the benefit, denial of the benefit, and circumstances suggesting discrimination. To prove unequal pay for equal work based on sex, she must demonstrate that the District pays different wages for equal work under similar conditions. Lacking direct evidence of discrimination, her claim will be evaluated using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

The court affirmed the magistrate's decision that the District did not discriminate against Kindred by denying her premium pay for the Wildwood-Mizpah Route. Kindred failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the refusal to grant premium pay did not constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII. The East Route, which received premium pay, was significantly longer—between 140 and 180 miles—compared to the 122-mile Wildwood-Mizpah Route, thereby disqualifying it for comparison under the equal work standard. Additionally, Kindred did not demonstrate that the denial of premium pay was due to her gender or that it violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Even if there were inconsistencies with the CBA, there was no evidence of intentional discrimination. The assumption that a comment made by Schuster about women not being able to handle bus duties reflected his beliefs did not support a claim of discrimination, as Kindred's reassignment contradicted such a belief. Although she mentioned instances of Schuster's negative behavior, there was no evidence of gender-based animus. The District's approval of premium pay for another female driver further undermined her claims. The court concluded that remarks based on gender stereotypes do not automatically indicate discrimination and that Kindred's dissatisfaction with her assignment did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action necessary for a discrimination claim.