Plaintiff Paul D. Russell sued defendant Christine E. Wormuth, Secretary of the Army, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging hostile work environment and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Russell began working at Irwin Army Community Hospital (IACH) in November 2010. In May 2017, he received a temporary promotion to Chief of the Logistics Division, serving until Major Tamara Tran assumed the position in November 2018. During the transition period and after, Russell alleged several incidents of gender-based discrimination, including Major Tran conducting gender-segregated meetings, assigning gender-specific readings, requiring male employees to schedule appointments while allowing female employees walk-in access, and making comments about the lack of female leadership.
The Army conducted both an EEO sensing session and an internal AR 15-6 investigation in response to complaints about Major Tran’s conduct. Both Russell and Major Tran were temporarily reassigned during the investigation. Russell filed an EEO complaint in May 2019, approximately six months after the alleged discriminatory conduct began.
Evidentiary Disputes: The court addressed one evidentiary issue regarding whether certain statements attributed to Major Tran were hearsay. The court determined the statements were not hearsay as they were offered to show their effect on the listener rather than for their truth.
Legal Analysis
Employer Liability: The court first analyzed whether Major Tran qualified as a supervisor for Title VII purposes and concluded she did. However, the court found no tangible employment actions were taken against Russell that would trigger strict liability.
Faragher/Ellerth Defense: The court examined the Army’s affirmative defense under Faragher/Ellerth, which requires showing both reasonable preventive measures and the plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to use available reporting procedures. While the Army satisfied the first prong through its anti-harassment policies and training, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Russell reasonably reported the harassment to Colonel Sexton.
Hostile Work Environment: The court analyzed whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. While finding that a reasonable jury could conclude the conduct was based on sex, the court determined that the conduct was neither severe nor pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of Russell’s employment under controlling Tenth Circuit precedent.
The court denied summary judgment on the Faragher/Ellerth defense but granted summary judgment to the defendant on the hostile work environment claim, finding the alleged conduct was neither severe nor pervasive enough to support the claim.
Schrag on Law 