Plaintiff Mary Gauna sued defendants Frisella Nursery, Inc., Anthony Frisella, Jr., Anthony Frisella, Sr., and Justin Verbryck in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Mary Gauna, a Hispanic female, was employed by Frisella Nursery as a landscape design assistant from September to December 2021. Anthony Frisella, Sr. owned the nursery, Anthony Frisella, Jr. was Vice President of Sales, and Justin Verbryck was Gauna’s direct supervisor. Gauna had limited work experience in landscape design when hired and acknowledged there would be a learning curve with the company’s design software.
During her employment, Gauna reported several incidents to her co-worker Preston Jordan, including alleged discriminatory comments and behaviors by her colleagues. These incidents included Frisella Jr.’s comment about hiring an “Indian woman,” co-workers asking about her ethnicity, and inappropriate behaviors by Frisella Jr. and other employees. Gauna never submitted a written complaint to management or human resources about these incidents.
Gauna’s work performance was described as “subpar” by Verbryck, who cited issues with her ability to adapt to software, attitude, and work ethic. Gauna was ultimately terminated for poor performance, inability to learn required software, lack of motivation, and inattention to detail.
Legal Analysis
Discrimination and Retaliation Claims: The court noted that Gauna failed to meaningfully address her claims of discrimination and retaliation based on her termination in her response to the summary judgment motion. By failing to oppose summary judgment on these grounds, the court deemed these claims waived.
Hostile Work Environment: Gauna argued that various incidents, including comments about her race and inappropriate sexual remarks, constituted a hostile work environment. The court analyzed whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Gauna’s employment and create an abusive working environment.
The court found that while the conduct and comments attributed to Gauna’s co-workers and supervisors were disrespectful and inappropriate, they were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment claim. The court concluded that a reasonable trier of fact would not find the alleged harassment so intimidating, offensive, or hostile that it poisoned the work environment.
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts, finding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Schrag on Law 