Bernadine Stewart v. Rise, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11179
8th Cir.2015Background
- Stewart, an American-born African‑American woman, supervised a Rise branch from 2007–2012 and alleges sustained harassment and intimidation by several mostly male, Somali‑born subordinates.
- Reported misconduct included racial/sexist epithets, threats of violence, physical intimidation (e.g., grabbing, throwing files), refusal to perform tasks labeled "women's work," and alleged sexualized/sexist comments.
- Stewart says she verbally reported many incidents to supervisors Truc Pham and HR director Mary Stransky; Rise contends many complaints were not made in writing and that Stewart certified compliance with Rise’s Code of Conduct annually.
- Rise placed Stewart on intermittent FMLA leave after a death in her family; a termination memo dated January 2012 was prepared before Rise received Stewart’s February EEOC charge, and Stewart was terminated in March 2012 for poor office performance (low workforce participation rate).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Rise on all claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on discriminatory‑termination and retaliation claims but reversed and remanded on the hostile work environment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stewart) | Defendant's Argument (Rise) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory termination | Termination was motivated by race/sex/national‑origin animus, evidenced by tolerance of harassment and supervisors' inaction | Termination based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory performance concerns (low workforce participation); decision predates EEOC charge | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to make prima facie showing; evidence of subordinate harassment did not establish decisionmakers' discriminatory motive |
| Hostile work environment | Subordinates' pervasive racial/sexual/ national‑origin harassment and physical intimidation created actionable hostile environment; supervisors knew or should have known and failed to act | Incidents were isolated, non‑severe, or managerial complaints about conduct; plaintiff did not use formal grievance process and certifications undercut claims | Reversed — genuine factual disputes exist on severity/pervasiveness and employer knowledge such that summary judgment was improper |
| Employer affirmative defense (Ellerth/Faragher) | Not dispositive because genuine disputes exist about what was reported, timing, and the effect of Stewart's annual certifications and whether complaint procedures were available/used | Rise points to Code of Conduct, conflict‑resolution policy, and Stewart’s certifications to invoke Ellerth/Faragher defense | Rejected at summary judgment — factual disputes preclude applying defense as a matter of law |
| Retaliation | Termination retaliatory for filing EEOC charge and reporting harassment | Decision to terminate was made in January before EEOC charge; performance concerns preceded alleged reporting | Affirmed — no evidence rebutting employer’s assertion decision pre‑dated EEOC filing; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (introduces employer affirmative defense to supervisor‑based harassment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (paired with Ellerth on employer liability/defense for hostile work environment)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (per curiam) (caution against weighing evidence on summary judgment; resolve factual disputes in plaintiff’s favor)
- Williams v. ConAgra Poultry Co., 378 F.3d 790 (8th Cir.) (evidence of tolerated harassment may bear on discriminatory motive in termination)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (sets the standard for determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive)