Plaintiff Courtney Goff sued defendant BOKF, NA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of sexual harassment (hostile work environment) and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. Before the court is Defendant BOKF’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claims.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Plaintiff Courtney Goff began working for BOKF as a telephone customer service representative and was promoted to client experience specialist, an in-branch position, on October 1, 2020. Shortly after her promotion, Ms. Goff had interactions with a co-worker, Samuel Njoku, that made her uncomfortable, including a message where he called her “very presentable” with an emoji suggesting secrecy.
On October 30, 2020, during lunch with her supervisor Ashley Pratt, Ms. Goff reported that Mr. Njoku had sent her a flirtatious message and had followed her into a dark, empty part of the bank to confront her about liking another male employee more than him. Ms. Pratt addressed the message with both Mr. Njoku and Ms. Goff that same day, acknowledging it seemed flirtatious and instructing Mr. Njoku to email Ms. Goff rather than approach her in person. Ms. Pratt also told Ms. Goff not to be so easily offended and to try to work more closely with Mr. Njoku.
On December 7, 2020, Ms. Goff sent an email to Mr. Njoku about his “habitual” practice of cornering her and asking why she was not close to him, warning him that she would contact her supervisor or the Employee Resource Center if the behavior continued. Ms. Goff did not report this to management at that time. On December 27, 2020, while Ms. Goff was on vacation, Mr. Njoku forwarded this email to Ms. Goff’s new supervisor, Tierra Tate, and requested reassignment to another branch. In response, BOKF began scheduling Ms. Goff and Mr. Njoku at different branches when possible.
Throughout December 2020 and January 2021, Ms. Goff had several other workplace conflicts, including disagreements with another co-worker, being corrected about bank policies, and a dispute over a $100 shortage in her drawer that she blamed on Mr. Njoku. Video evidence reviewed by BOKF showed Ms. Goff was responsible for the shortage, but she refused to accept this conclusion.
On January 11, 2021, BOKF decided to investigate concerns by and about Ms. Goff. On January 21, 2021, BOKF’s director of human resources, Amber Bryant, met with other HR staff and determined that Ms. Goff had “demonstrated an unwillingness to… be receptive to coaching efforts” and had “displayed issues building relationships with co-workers” in violation of BOKF standards and policies. Based on these findings, Ms. Bryant decided to terminate Ms. Goff’s employment.
Legal Analysis
Scope of Motion for Summary Judgment
The court first addressed whether BOKF’s motion covered only the federal Title VII claims or both the federal and state claims under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). Despite BOKF’s assertion that the federal and state claims are “mirror images,” the court determined that BOKF had not clearly stated its intention to seek summary judgment on the OADA claims and had not identified the standard applicable to those claims. Therefore, the court limited its analysis to Ms. Goff’s Title VII claims.
Hostile Work Environment Claim:
The court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Ms. Goff had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue regarding the elements of a hostile work environment claim. However, the court found that Ms. Goff failed to establish that BOKF was responsible for that environment under a negligence theory.
The court noted that BOKF was only aware of two incidents of alleged harassment: (1) the flirtatious message about Ms. Goff’s appearance, and (2) Mr. Njoku following Ms. Goff into a dark area of the bank to question her about her closeness with another male employee. The court found BOKF’s response to these incidents was reasonable because:
- BOKF responded swiftly and immediately to Ms. Goff’s concerns on the same day they were raised.
- Ms. Pratt acknowledged that the text seemed flirtatious and instructed Mr. Njoku to change his behavior.
- Ms. Pratt followed up with Ms. Goff to check on the situation, though Ms. Goff chose not to engage.
- BOKF took steps to separate Ms. Goff and Mr. Njoku once it became aware of continued conflict between them.
The court concluded that the evidence did not support the inference that BOKF failed to take remedial measures that were “reasonably calculated to end” the instances of harassment it was aware of.
Retaliation Claim:
The court assumed for its analysis that Ms. Goff had established a prima facie case of retaliation. Ms. Goff did not challenge BOKF’s assertion that it had legitimate reasons for terminating her employment—her “unwillingness to… be receptive to coaching efforts” and her “issues building relationships with co-workers.” Therefore, the court only needed to determine whether Ms. Goff had demonstrated that BOKF’s stated reasons were pretextual.
The court found that Ms. Goff’s evidence failed to establish pretext. The fact that Mr. Njoku was not disciplined did not show that BOKF’s reasons for firing Ms. Goff were false, as there was no evidence that BOKF believed Mr. Njoku’s conduct was comparable to Ms. Goff’s. The timing of Ms. Goff’s termination, six weeks after her supervisors became aware of her email to Mr. Njoku, was insufficient standing alone to establish pretext. The court also rejected Ms. Goff’s arguments about BOKF’s consideration of her correspondence with other co-workers and alleged inconsistencies in testimony about who made the termination decision.
The court granted BOKF’s motion for summary judgment on Ms. Goff’s federal claims, finding that she failed to present evidence sufficient to permit a jury to find that BOKF negligently failed to address the hostile work environment allegedly created by Mr. Njoku’s conduct or that BOKF’s stated reasons for firing her were pretextual.
Schrag on Law 