Merry Christmas to those of you avoiding family by reading employment law blogs. Are we not all living the dream?
Plaintiff Leona Walker sued defendant Christine E. Wormuth, Secretary of the United States Army, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discriminatory hostile work environment, retaliatory hostile work environment, and retaliation. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Walker, an African American woman, worked at Irwin Army Community Hospital since 1996 and was promoted to nurse case manager in 2005. In November 2017, the Company Commander initiated an AR 15-6 investigation into allegations that Walker created a hostile work environment. The investigation concluded in March 2018 with findings that Walker made racial comments, created a hostile work environment, and had a negative influence. Based on these findings, Walker received a three-year letter of reprimand and was reassigned to a different department, though her position, title, and compensation remained unchanged. In her 2018 performance evaluation, Walker received a “not rated” on one element due to the ongoing investigation and did not receive a bonus that year. Walker filed two EEO complaints alleging discrimination and retaliation.
Legal Analysis
Discriminatory Hostile Work Environment:
The court found no evidence that the AR 15-6 investigation and resulting letter of reprimand created a workplace permeated with severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct.
Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment:
The court determined Walker failed to demonstrate that her 2018 performance evaluation and lack of bonus constituted a sufficiently severe or pervasive hostile work environment.
Retaliation and Application of Muldrow:
The court addressed Walker’s citation to Muldrow, explaining that while Muldrow held that Title VII’s antidiscrimination provision does not require showing “significant harm” from an alteration of employment terms, this standard does not apply to retaliation claims. For retaliation claims, plaintiffs must still show the action was “materially adverse” and caused significant harm sufficient to dissuade a reasonable worker from making discrimination charges. The court found Walker failed to establish her reassignment was an adverse employment action or that the AR 15-6 investigation was caused by her protected activity. Additionally, Walker did not demonstrate the Army’s legitimate non-retaliatory reasons were pretextual.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims.
Schrag on Law 