Plaintiff Sherri Sickels, a transgender woman, sued defendant Denis McDonough, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri raising claims of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before the court is Defendant McDonough’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Sickels began working for the VA in 2009 and was hired as an Electrical Helper in 2013. She applied for WG-10 Electrician positions multiple times throughout her employment. In August 2018, Sickels interviewed for five WG-10 Electrician vacancies but was not selected despite scoring second-highest in the interview. Evidence suggested that one interviewer, Shane Pettis, lowered Sickels’ score because he did not want “that thing” in his shop. In June 2020, Sickels applied for another WG-10 Electrician position but was not selected for an interview.
Throughout her employment, Sickels experienced harassment and discriminatory comments related to her transgender status from supervisors and coworkers. She reported some of these incidents, but the harassment continued. Sickels also participated in a fact-finding interview in June 2019 related to confidentiality violations.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness and Exhaustion: The court found that Sickels’ claims related to her non-selections for January 2019, February 2019, and May 2019 positions were untimely and unexhausted. These allegations were not considered as independently actionable claims.
Hostile Work Environment: The court addressed Sickels’ attempt to establish a hostile work environment claim based on various incidents, including discriminatory comments, vandalism of her bathroom, removal of her bike brakes, and a video shared by coworkers comparing her to a man in a Hooters outfit. However, the court determined that these allegations could not be considered as part of her hostile work environment claim because Sickels had not presented them to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and provided no evidence that they fell within the statutory limitations period. The court explained that under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan and Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc., these incidents were insufficiently related to the timely allegations presented to the OPM to be considered part of the same unlawful employment practice. Consequently, the court limited its consideration to Sickels’ non-selections for various positions and her participation in the fact-finding interview. The court then concluded that these discrete acts, which are typically independently actionable, were ill-suited to support a hostile work environment claim. The court noted that hostile work environment claims typically involve repeated conduct over time, rather than separate actionable incidents. Furthermore, Sickels failed to demonstrate how these promotional decisions constituted severe or pervasive discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that altered her employment conditions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on Sickels’ hostile work environment claim based on sex discrimination.
Sex Discrimination:
August 2018 Electrician Position: The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the interview panel’s discriminatory animus and actions were a proximate cause of Sickels’ non-selection, allowing this claim to proceed under a “cat’s paw” theory of liability.
June 2020 Electrician Position: The court determined that there was a genuine dispute as to whether Sickels’ sex was a motivation for declining to interview her, allowing this claim to proceed as well.
Retaliation: The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on Sickels’ retaliation claim, finding insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between her protected activity and the decision not to interview her for the June 2020 position.
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Sickels’ hostile work environment and retaliation claims while allowing her sex discrimination claims related to the August 2018 and June 2020 Electrician positions to proceed.
Schrag on Law 