Janet R. Kerns v. Capital Graphics, Inc., Doing Business as Clarinda Company
Docket: 98-2479
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; June 2, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Janet R. Kerns filed a lawsuit against her employer, Capital Graphics, Inc., claiming gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Capital Graphics, prompting Kerns to appeal, asserting that the court erred in its decision and in striking parts of her affidavit.
At the time of the events, Kerns was a personnel administrator at Clarinda Company, a division of Capital Graphics. In 1995, Ron Castiglioni became the president of Clarinda and was reportedly difficult to work with, alienating employees regardless of gender. In January 1996, Kerns confronted Castiglioni about complaints from female employees regarding unposted job openings filled by men, as well as rumors about favoritism toward a male employee. Castiglioni asserted his authority over hiring decisions and inquired into the relationship between two employees, Kevin Andersen and Alicia McCollum, prompting Kerns to investigate.
Kerns found no evidence of misconduct and sent a memo to Castiglioni asserting that the rumors about Andersen and McCollum were unfounded. Following this, Castiglioni communicated with Doug Friedrich, president of Capital Graphics, about Kerns' memo, clarifying that he had not instructed her to conduct an investigation. Friedrich suggested terminating Kerns, but Castiglioni preferred to limit her role to avoid further issues. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision.
Castiglioni reprimanded Kerns for her actions, labeling her as incompetent and a violator of company confidentiality. He issued a memo stating she lacked authorization for her actions and was not permitted to take unilateral decisions. Kerns was informed that she needed his approval for any activities outside her routine work and was to consult him before sending memos or reports. As a result, Castiglioni increased her supervision by having her report directly to him and relocating her office closer to his, while also assigning her more tasks at the Clarinda facility.
Subsequently, Castiglioni reprimanded Kerns for additional actions, including a memo she sent suggesting a costly change in vacation policy. He criticized her for circulating the memo to multiple recipients, violating his prior instructions. Around the same time, after the termination of sales representative Michelle Quintana, Kerns mistakenly sent an incomplete personnel file to Quintana without consulting Castiglioni, prompting him to highlight their ongoing communication issues in another memo.
Kerns also inaccurately claimed that all exempt employees, except general managers, had undergone performance reviews. Castiglioni corrected her, pointing out that several employees had not been reviewed. Shortly thereafter, he sent Kerns a memo addressing her dissemination of incorrect information regarding vacation reinstatement policies, warning her that her actions were compromising the positions of her colleagues. Upset by this final memo, Kerns resigned and her responsibilities were reassigned to two other employees.
Kerns applied for unemployment benefits and filed discrimination complaints with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation for investigating potential sexual harassment. Initially, her employer did not contest her unemployment claim, but later appealed it, despite the appeal being untimely. The Iowa Job Service Division ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the late appeal, allowing Kerns to continue receiving benefits. Kerns subsequently filed a federal lawsuit, claiming discriminatory treatment, forced termination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and Iowa law, as well as a violation of Iowa public policy for consulting an attorney about the company's actions.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Capital Graphics, stating that Kerns failed to provide direct evidence of discrimination and did not demonstrate that the employer's reasons were pretextual. Her retaliation claims were also dismissed for lack of proof of pretext, and her public policy claim was abandoned during the appeal process. The summary judgment ruling is subject to de novo review, requiring no genuine material facts in dispute and the moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Kerns needed to show an adverse employment action, which she failed to do as the court noted that minor changes in duties or conditions do not constitute a material employment disadvantage necessary for such a claim.
Kerns claims she was constructively discharged but must demonstrate that her working conditions were intolerable to a reasonable person and that her employer intended to drive her to resign or could foresee she would do so. While Kerns presents evidence of Castiglioni's offensive behavior towards women, she fails to establish that it created a hostile work environment for her or contributed to her departure, as she was not aware of all incidents before leaving the company. Kerns alleges she was forced to work with a sexist supervisor who criticized her and revoked her discretionary authority. However, there was no change in her job title, benefits, or salary, and she did not explain the significance of the authority she lost. The conditions she describes do not show that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to leave. Furthermore, the evidence does not indicate any adverse employment actions, as Castiglioni's criticism lacked formal impact on her status, and changes in her reporting line and office location do not constitute material disadvantages. Though the district court ruled correctly on the failure to establish a prima facie case, it also noted Kerns did not provide direct evidence of discriminatory intent or sufficient evidence of pretext. In the absence of direct evidence, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies. Kerns' reliance on Castiglioni's sexist comments does not directly connect to her treatment, as there is no evidence that disciplinary actions against her were based on her gender, necessitating the use of the McDonnell Douglas analysis rather than the mixed motive test.
To establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an action is pretextual. Kerns failed to provide evidence that Castiglioni's disapproval of her work performance, which motivated disciplinary actions, was pretextual. Despite her claims of inconsistency regarding investigations she was asked to conduct, she did not contest his dissatisfaction with her overall performance. Kerns acknowledged making errors, such as misrepresenting the review status of other exempt employees and causing operational disruptions, which undermined her position. Her prior good performance reviews did not invalidate recent negative evaluations, nor did the company’s sexual harassment policies negate Castiglioni's claims of her poor judgment.
Kerns also appealed the dismissal of her retaliation claims, which were flawed on both procedural and substantive grounds. She altered the nature of her claims without formally amending her complaint and abandoned the argument regarding retaliation for the company's appeal of her unemployment benefits due to failure to brief the issue. She did not sufficiently plead claims of retaliation for opposing unlawful practices. To succeed, Kerns needed to show evidence of adverse employment action linked to her protected activity; however, while her agency filings were protected, she could not demonstrate that the company's actions resulted in a material employment disadvantage.
Even assuming her concerns about management practices constituted protected opposition, Kerns did not present adequate evidence of adverse employment action or pretext. Upon reviewing the record, the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to Capital Graphics was upheld, affirming the ruling.
Kerns contends that the district court mistakenly struck parts of her affidavit and statement of fact. However, an examination of the stricken materials reveals that Capital Graphics would have been entitled to summary judgment regardless of their inclusion, rendering any error harmless and not warranting reversal. Iowa follows the federal framework for discrimination claims under its state law, aligning its civil rights statutes with Title VII, and federal case law is deemed instructive for interpretation. Kerns presented evidence to support her claim that Castiglioni exhibited bias against women, including his exclusion of Kerns and another female executive from management meetings, reported instances of loud and arrogant behavior towards Jennings, and allegations of sexual comments made to female employees. Capital Graphics president Doug Friedrich acknowledged receiving a memo in which Castiglioni expressed a strong dislike for women. Additionally, three women at Clarinda reported sexual harassment by Castiglioni, but Kerns did not claim to have experienced sexual harassment herself.
