Alexandra Bradley sued the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, as representative of the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU), in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Bradley, an African-American woman, began working for the BPU in 2013. She worked in various positions, including at the Nearman Water Treatment Plant (NWTP) under Steve Nirschl’s supervision. Bradley alleged experiencing racial discrimination and harassment throughout her employment, including racist comments, unfair treatment, and a hostile work environment. She filed complaints and charges of discrimination in 2017 and 2018. In September 2019, Bradley transferred to a hybrid position with different supervisors. She resigned in September 2020, citing continued abuse and harassment.
The court noted evidentiary disputes regarding the admissibility of certain statements, including a coworker’s use of a racial slur. The court overruled the defendant’s objection to this statement, finding it admissible to show the racial attitude of the workplace.
Legal Analysis
Race Discrimination Claim:The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze Bradley’s race discrimination claim. It considered several alleged adverse employment actions, including lower pay in the hybrid position, denial of promotion, and constructive discharge. The court found that Bradley failed to establish a prima facie case or show pretext for most of these actions. For the pay decrease, the court determined that Bradley did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the defendant’s reason for starting her at a lower pay step was pretext for discrimination.
Retaliation Claim: The court found that Bradley failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under § 1981. It noted that any protected activity fell outside the four-year statute of limitations, and Bradley did not identify any protected opposition to race discrimination within the relevant time period.
Hostile Work Environment Claim: The court determined that Bradley raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was subjected to a racially hostile environment at the BPU from her initial date of employment until September 1, 2019. It considered both overtly racial incidents and racially neutral harassment in its analysis.
Municipal Liability: The court found that Bradley failed to establish a basis for municipal liability on her § 1981 claims. It rejected Bradley’s argument that Nirschl acted as a final policymaker, noting that there was no evidence to support a finding that the BPU or its General Manager delegated final authority to Nirschl in any respect.
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all of Bradley’s claims.
Schrag on Law 