987 F.3d 1192
8th Cir.2021Background
- Anita Kempf worked as an architect for Hennepin County (1997–2016); a March 9, 2016 office confrontation with her manager, Jay Biedny, produced competing reports that he threatened her and that she yelled and poked a supervisor.
- The County investigated and on March 17, 2016 suspended Kempf for five days for alleged misconduct (shouting at Biedny and poking a supervisor); Kempf returned and on April 11 filed an informal complaint criticizing the County’s handling of gender-based threats (filed after the suspension).
- In April 2016 the County documented additional incidents, placed Kempf on paid administrative leave April 26, issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on May 3 for performance and misconduct, and Kempf resigned (treated as termination for appeal purposes).
- Kempf sued for retaliation under Title VII and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA); the district court granted summary judgment to the County on the Title VII retaliation claims and dismissed the MWA claims under supplemental jurisdiction.
- On appeal, Kempf challenged only her retaliation claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Title VII suspension- and termination-based claims and remanded to dismiss the MWA claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suspension was retaliatory under Title VII (did Kempf engage in protected activity pre-suspension?) | Kempf says her conduct opposed alleged sexual harassment by Biedny and the suspension reflects retaliation for that opposition | County says Kempf never communicated that Biedny’s conduct was sexual or gender-based before the suspension, so she did not engage in protected activity | Held for County — Kempf failed to show she opposed unlawful sexual harassment before suspension, so no prima facie Title VII claim |
| Whether termination (resignation) was retaliatory under Title VII (and whether Kempf rebutted employer’s nonretaliatory reasons) | Kempf contends post-suspension complaints about investigations and gender-based threats were protected and that some proffered reasons for termination are pretextual; she argues she need not disprove every reason because reasons were a ‘‘laundry list’’ | County proffers four legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for termination (unauthorized entry into a secured suite, loud/aggressive confrontation with a director, missed deadline, unprofessional client meeting) and argues Kempf must show pretext as to each | Held for County — even assuming protected conduct, Kempf did not show the reasons were so intertwined or blatantly pretextual that rebutting some invalidates the rest, and she failed to rebut all proffered reasons |
| Whether MWA claims survive despite Title VII dismissal and whether federal court should resolve novel state-law questions | Kempf argues MWA may protect broader conduct and Minnesota law might permit a different standard on proving pretext | County argues state exclusivity and that MWA claims failed like Title VII claims | Held: MWA claims dismissed without prejudice — federal court declines to decide novel state-law issues and remands them to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and view of disputed facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Barrett v. Omaha Nat’l Bank, 726 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1984) (Title VII protects employees from retaliation for reporting sexual harassment)
- EEOC v. N. Mem’l Health Care, 908 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2018) (employee must communicate belief that conduct is unlawful to employer to invoke Title VII opposition clause)
- Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (vague complaints do not satisfy Title VII opposition requirement)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for proving discrimination/retaliation without direct evidence)
- Mahler v. First Dakota Title Ltd. P’ship, 931 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2019) (elements of a Title VII retaliation prima facie case)
- Gilbert v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll., 495 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must discredit employer’s reasons and permit inference of retaliatory motive)
- Fischer v. Avanade, Inc., 519 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2008) (where employer offers multiple grounds, pretext as to some grounds can suffice if grounds are intertwined or one ground is obviously suspect)
- Jaramillo v. Colo. Jud. Dep’t, 427 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2005) (survey of tests for when a plaintiff need not rebut every employer justification)
- Hervey v. Cnty. of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissing state-law claims without prejudice when federal claims are dismissed and state-law questions remain)