Alana Crutcher-Sanchez v. James L. Wagner, 687 F.3d 979

Crutcher-Sanchez, a probationary corrections officer, sued Dakota County, Nebraska, Sheriff Wagner, Chief Deputy Herron, and Sergeant Ramirez under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
She alleged Herron and Wagner created or fostered a sexually hostile work environment; Herron and Ramirez conspired to deprive her of civil rights.
She lacked the county’s harassment policy and training, having not received the employee handbook.
Wagner persisted in asking Crutcher-Sanchez out; she declined, and there were no explicit sexual acts by him toward her.
Herron pursued Crutcher-Sanchez, had sex with her on multiple occasions, and pressured secrecy about their relationship.
Ramirez, under Herron’s direction, issued disciplinary notices culminating in a termination letter; there is a dispute over who authored and signed the termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Herron’s conduct constitutes hostile environment harassment	Crutcher-Sanchez argues unwelcome, sex-based harassment by Herron.	Herron contends conduct was consensual or not sufficiently severe/pervasive.	Yes; summary judgment denied for Herron on this theory.
Whether Ramirez and Herron conspired under §1985(3)	Crutcher-Sanchez alleges a conspiracy to terminate her rights.	Defendants contend no evidence of a meeting of the minds or beyond-scope actions.	Conspiracy claim should be dismissed; district court erred in denying summary judgment.
Whether Wagner’s conduct created a hostile environment	Wagner’s advances were unwelcome and discriminatory under the standards.	Wagner’s conduct was inappropriate but not severe/pervasive enough to alter terms of employment.	Yes; Wagner is entitled to summary judgment on hostile environment claim.

Tuggle v. Mangan, 348 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2003) (hostile environment standard and burden of proof)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court) (hostile work environment framework)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Supreme Court) (demanding severity standards for harassment)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (Supreme Court) (clearly established rights require particularized contours)
Moring v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 234 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 2001) (supervisor interference with subordinate violates rights)
Sutherland v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 580 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (employer knowledge and action required for harassment claim)
Moore v. Indehar, 514 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2008) (contextual, fact-intensive analysis for clearly established right)
Turner v. Ark. Ins. Dep’t, 297 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of official in light of law at time of incident)
Barstad v. Murray Cnty., 420 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2005) (conspiracy requires meeting of the minds; gov’t entity cannot conspire with itself)