Eighth Circuit upholds summary judgment in worker’s discrimination case

The friction followed her. After a new supervisor took over at a second site, she emailed the company that he “want[ed] everything his way” and told him directly she would not be “criticized or demeaned.” The company’s operations director wrote in a February 23 email that “[w]e need to terminate” the worker and called her complaint “BS.”

Then the director changed course. Rather than terminate, she opened a formal investigation, asking the worker for witnesses, notes and documentation, with interviews the following week. The worker’s own supporting witness told investigators he “did not notice any sort of inappropriate behavior” from the supervisor she had accused. The company found “no substantiat[ing] evidence” for her claims.

The company told the worker the site was “not a good fit” and offered her a transfer to a Connecticut job site at the same pay and benefits – the only other opening. She resigned instead, then sued under federal and Michigan law.

The court found no direct evidence of discrimination, only the worker’s “own uncorroborated, conclusory deposition testimony.” Her emails during the disputes never mentioned sex or discrimination, and neither did she in her own investigation interview. Her claim that she was the only woman asked to move also failed, because she never showed male coworkers were in comparable situations.

On retaliation, the court did not decide whether she had engaged in protected activity. It ruled she could not show the transfer was a pretext. The company had documented reasons: repeated run-ins with supervisors, a forklift accident, and a report that she “screamed and disrespected hotel staff.” Installers, one manager testified, “get moved around quite often.” The court also noted that the termination email had responded to a complaint that never mentioned sex or discrimination.