Plaintiffs Susan Pfannenstiel, Amber Harrington, and Jarah Cooper sued defendants State of Kansas and Herman Jones in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of hostile work environment under Title VII and violation of First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
The plaintiffs were employees of the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP). Pfannenstiel worked as the Director of Human Resources, Harrington was a Captain, and Cooper was a Trooper. Each plaintiff alleged various incidents of harassment or discrimination during their employment with KHP.
Pfannenstiel claimed she experienced inappropriate interactions with KHP Superintendent Herman Jones, including suggestive instant messages and a threatening meeting about an anonymous letter. She also alleged being excluded from policy discussions and having her input ignored.
Harrington alleged three incidents of unwanted touching by Jones in 2019 and subsequent retaliatory actions by her supervisor, Major Andrew Dean, in 2020-2021 after she filed an EEOC complaint.
Cooper claimed she faced overly restrictive work limitations during her pregnancy, excessive monitoring by her supervisor, and denial of training opportunities. She also drafted a letter to the Governor complaining about various issues at KHP but did not send it due to fear of retaliation.
The plaintiffs filed suit, and the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Legal Analysis
Hostile Work Environment Claims
Pfannenstiel’s Claim: The court affirmed the dismissal of Pfannenstiel’s hostile work environment claim. It found that the alleged incidents, including the instant message exchange with Jones and the meeting about the anonymous letter, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. The court noted that Pfannenstiel’s allegations about being excluded from policy discussions were too generalized and unsupported to create a genuine issue of fact.
Harrington’s Claim: The court affirmed the dismissal of Harrington’s hostile work environment claim. It concluded that the three incidents of touching by Jones in 2019, standing alone, were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. The court also found that Harrington failed to provide sufficient evidence to link the alleged retaliatory actions by Dean in 2020-2021 to Jones’s conduct, thus preventing them from being considered part of a single hostile work environment claim.
Cooper’s Claim: The court affirmed the dismissal of Cooper’s hostile work environment claim. It found that Cooper failed to provide evidence that her alleged mistreatment was sex-based and that the alleged acts of harassment were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment.
First Amendment Claim
The court affirmed the dismissal of Cooper’s First Amendment claim against Jones. It found that Cooper failed to carry her burden of demonstrating a clearly established violation of her First Amendment rights in response to Jones’s assertion of qualified immunity. The court noted that Cooper’s reliance on a single case (Wulf v. City of Wichita) was insufficient to establish clearly established law in this context.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all hostile work environment claims and Cooper’s First Amendment claim.
Schrag on Law 