Plaintiff Tanisha Sanders sued defendant TC Transcontinental Tulsa in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Before the court was Defendant TC Transcontinental’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
The defendant submitted thirty-one undisputed facts supported by record citations. The plaintiff presented nineteen facts in dispute but failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 by not providing proper record citations for most of her contentions. Instead, she characterized several of defendant’s statements as misleading or false without supporting evidence. The court deemed defendant’s thirty-one undisputed facts admitted due to plaintiff’s failure to properly dispute them under the local rules.
Evidentiary Disputes: The court noted that plaintiff failed to present any contrary evidence, such as sworn statements, to dispute defendant’s evidence. The plaintiff’s characterizations of the record evidence were deemed self-serving and unsupported.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Discrimination: The court assumed without deciding that plaintiff met her prima facie burden under McDonnell Douglas. The defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination was plaintiff’s inability to work with others as a team, supported by a sworn statement from General Manager Kelly Sivadon. The court found plaintiff failed to show pretext, noting that her reliance on the termination letter’s failure to mention performance issues did not create a genuine issue of material fact.
Hostile Work Environment: Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim rested on two incidents: a coworker’s comment about a “soul food restaurant” and the same coworker showing photos of female bodybuilders to another person. The court found these isolated incidents did not reach the level of severity or pervasiveness required in the Tenth Circuit.
Retaliation: The plaintiff claimed retaliation for complaining about “tension” with a subordinate employee. The court found this did not constitute protected activity under Title VII, which requires participation in Title VII proceedings or opposition to unlawful employment practices.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact existed and the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Schrag on Law 