Stuart v. General Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621
(8th Cir. June 26, 2000)Keywords: Title VII (sexual harassment;
retaliation)
Introduction: Lora Stuart sued GM under Title VII alleging a sexually
hostile work environment, retaliation by discipline and retaliation by termination. The
district court granted summary judgment on behalf of GM. The Eighth Circuit affirms.
Facts: On July 14, 1996, Stuart complained to her supervisor, Dave
Murphree, that male employees were being allowed longer breaks than female employees.
On July 15, 1996, Stuart reiterated her complaint to her union representative and she
also advised him of a computer in her work area that contained a pornographic computer
program.
A supervisor offered to move Stuart to another area of the plant, and she declined.
Also on July 15, the plant manager directed the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator
to investigate the computer program. The plant manager also instructed that the program be
removed from the computer in question.
A week later, all computers had been checked for pornographic programs. Also, the
investigation determined that an employee out on disability leave had installed the
program. He never returned to work and could not be interviewed or disciplined.
In early August, GM sent a pamphlet and letter to all employees notifying them of the
company's sexual harassment policy.
On July 20, 1996, Stuart complained about pornographic photographs found in her locker.
So many people had touched the photographs that it was determined that a fingerprint
analysis would be futile.
During this same time period, Stuart was disciplined on several occasions.
On July 18, 1996, she was suspended for the balance of her shift plus one day for
taking "excessive relief" on July 14, 1996.
On July 20, 1996, she was suspended for the balance of her shift plus three days for
insubordination.
On July 27, 1996, she was suspended for the balance of her shift plus one week for
being under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work.
On August 9, 1996, she was suspended for the balance of her shift plus two weeks
without pay for being late to work.
On November 8, 1996, she was suspended for the balance of her shift plus thirty days
for tardiness.
On January 9, 1997, Stuart and a co-worker, John Barry, were terminated for having sex
at work on January 2.
Law:
- Retaliation by discipline claim
- This claim fails because Stuart did not exhaust her administrative
remedies with respect to this claim.
- In her administrative charge, she complained of sexual harassment and
she complained that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining of sex
discrimination. But she made no mention that GM engaged in retaliatory discipline.
- Retaliation by termination
- This claim fails because Stuart failed to show that the person who made
the termination decision did not honestly believe that Stuart had engaged in sex on the
job.
- Sexual harassment
- Stuart alleges that she was subjected to the following harassing
conduct: (1) regular comments by male co-workers regarding "PMS" and her alleged
lack of sexual relations; (2) occasional "saluting" by male co-workers,
involving grabbing their genitals and making "hoo-ha" noises; (3) the placement
of sexually oriented photographs in her locker on one occasion; (4) the presence of a
computer with a pornographic computer program in her general work area; and (5) the
placement of offensive signs by unknown persons on her work locker.
- Stuart's claim fails because she failed to show that she subjectively
considered the work environment to be hostile.
- Her claim also fails because she has not indicated how any of the
actions she complained of affected a term, privilege, or condition of employment. In fact,
when she was offered a transfer, she declined.
- Finally, her claim fails because GM took prompt and remedial action
reasonably calculated to end the harassment about which it knew or should have known.
- Click
here to see
actual case.