Mariana Rodriguez Juarez sued Midwest Division – OPRMC, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting claims of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Juarez, a conservative Hispanic woman and practicing Muslim with limited English proficiency, worked as a Dietary Assistant at Overland Park Regional Medical Center from November 2020 to April 2021. During her employment, three male employees (Word, Morales, and Green) allegedly subjected her to harassment, including sexually charged comments and intimidating behavior. After reporting the harassment to HR in March 2021, Juarez claims the company failed to investigate her complaints, and her department director attempted to persuade her to withdraw her complaint against Word. Following a two-week unpaid leave of absence, Juarez returned to work but resigned shortly thereafter.
Evidentiary and Procedural Issues: The court addressed a significant procedural issue regarding defendant’s compliance with District of Kansas Local Rule 56.1. After plaintiff submitted 50 additional material facts in her opposition brief, defendant’s reply failed to properly contest these facts as required by the local rule. Instead of numbering each disputed fact, providing specific record citations, and clearly identifying which of plaintiff’s numbered facts were being challenged, defendant merely offered general criticisms about “hyperbolic characterizations” and “inflammatory buzz words,” supported by eight unnumbered bullet points containing selective examples. The court found this response insufficient under Local Rule 56.1(b)(1). As a consequence, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), the court deemed undisputed all facts that defendant failed to specifically cite and address with proper record citations. This procedural failure significantly shaped the factual landscape for the summary judgment analysis, as many of plaintiff’s additional facts were treated as undisputed for purposes of resolving the motion.
Legal Analysis
Sex Discrimination: The court expressed frustration with both parties’ inadequate treatment of the controlling Supreme Court precedent. Despite Muldrow being decided over six months earlier and fundamentally changing the standard for adverse employment action in Title VII discrimination cases, defendant’s opening brief failed to mention the case at all. While both parties acknowledged Muldrow in subsequent briefing, neither meaningfully analyzed its impact on the present dispute. The court noted that several federal and state courts had already addressed Muldrow’s new standard, yet the parties continued to frame their arguments as if Muldrow had never been decided. Defendant’s failure to address the governing legal standard was particularly baffling to the court, as defendant purported to seek summary judgment on the narrow question of adverse employment action under pre-Muldrow case law while simultaneously arguing the merits of plaintiff’s claims. Given this inadequate briefing, the court erred on the side of denying summary judgment.
Retaliation: The court distinguished between the standards for adverse employment action in discrimination and retaliation claims, noting that retaliation claims still require showing “significant” harm that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making discrimination charges. The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether defendant’s conduct would have dissuaded a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.
The court overruled defendant’s motion for summary judgment on both the sex discrimination and retaliation claims.
Schrag on Law 