Plaintiff Terri L. Thurman sued defendant State of Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Thurman worked as a trial and district court clerk at the Labette County courthouse in Kansas’ Eleventh Judicial District from October 1993 through her retirement in December 2021. In 2017, Judge Fred W. Johnson was appointed to the Eleventh Judicial District and assigned to Labette County. Thurman’s supervisor was Mac Young, the district court administrator.
In May 2019, following a budget meeting, Judge Johnson confronted Thurman about when she would retire. During this confrontation, Judge Johnson yelled at Thurman, would not let her speak, threw his hands in the air, and told her that he was through with her. Prior to this incident, Judge Johnson had never raised his voice to Thurman, and he never did so afterward. Judge Johnson did not reference Thurman’s gender during the incident.
Thurman felt uncomfortable with Judge Johnson’s behavior on two additional occasions: when he failed to introduce her to a jury while she was training a new hire on bailiff duties, and when he corrected her for beginning to administer an incorrect oath to a jury.
In January 2020, following a heated exchange between Judge Johnson and a court reporter named Sabrina Overfield, Thurman filed a formal complaint against Judge Johnson with the Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct (KCJC). In her complaint, Thurman asserted that she and Overfield worked in a hostile work environment. The KCJC concluded that Judge Johnson did not violate the judicial code.
While the KCJC conducted its investigation, the chief judge of the district met with Thurman and offered her the option of working in a different building than Judge Johnson or even working remotely. After this discussion, Thurman had the liberty to work where she wanted.
Thurman alleged that her work environment changed for the worse after filing the complaint. She claimed her subordinates became distant, Judge Johnson began hosting Zoom meetings where he directed all questions to her, she did not receive Judge Johnson’s weekly docket calendar, and Young identified areas she needed to improve in her annual review and failed to promptly fill a deputy clerk position.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court noted an evidentiary dispute regarding Thurman’s assertion that Judge Johnson announced to the deputy clerks that she had filed a formal complaint against him. The court found that Thurman had not properly supported this assertion with admissible evidence, as she was relying on hearsay statements from coworkers without affidavits or other admissible evidence.
Legal Analysis
Hostile Work Environment:
The court found that Thurman’s hostile work environment claim failed for two reasons: (1) the conduct did not amount to severe and pervasive harassment, and (2) Judge Johnson’s conduct directed toward Thurman was not based on sex.
The court noted that many of Thurman’s assertions appeared to be common workplace problems. The Zoom meetings, hiring process delays, and issues with receiving Judge Johnson’s docket calendar were routine workplace matters rather than harassment. Judge Johnson’s conduct, at most, amounted to a few isolated incidents of “boorish, juvenile, or annoying behavior” that are not actionable under Title VII.
The court also found that Thurman failed to establish that Judge Johnson’s treatment occurred because of her sex. There was no overtly sex-based harassment to contextualize her claim. None of the incidents involved references to her gender, and her attempt to show differential treatment between male and female employees was unconvincing.
Retaliation:
The court concluded that although Thurman engaged in protected opposition when she filed her formal complaint with the KCJC, she failed to demonstrate that a reasonable employee would have found the subsequent treatment materially adverse. The alleged retaliatory actions were neither sufficiently severe nor pervasive to dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity.
Constructive Discharge:
The court rejected Thurman’s constructive discharge claim, finding that she failed to demonstrate that Judge Johnson and Young engaged in unlawful conduct that made her working conditions unbearable and forced her to resign. The court characterized her complaints as “subjective frustrations of disgruntled employees” that do not give rise to Title VII claims.
The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied as moot Thurman’s motion to strike Mac Young’s affidavit.
Schrag on Law 