776 F.Supp.3d 357
W.D. Va.2025Background
- Kelly Buck was hired as Plant Superintendent at Modine Manufacturing Company, transitioning from a primarily HR background to a manufacturing leadership role.
- Buck quickly encountered conflict with colleagues and supervisors, exhibiting what was described by management as hostile, sarcastic, and insubordinate behavior.
- Buck complained that a male colleague, Penney, was "mansplaining" to her and treating her and other women in a condescending manner, which she viewed as discriminatory based on sex.
- After several incidents highlighting Buck’s behavior (including the 'sanding incident'), Modine terminated her, citing behavioral and interpersonal issues as the cause.
- Buck filed a six-count complaint, asserting sex discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, the Virginia Human Rights Act, and Virginia common law (the Bowman claim, which was previously dismissed).
- The court was ruling on Modine's motion for summary judgment as to the remaining discrimination and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex Discrimination (Title VII/VHRA) | Treated differently based on sex by Penney's conduct | Penney's behavior was same toward all employees, not based on sex | No discrimination—claim dismissed |
| Adverse Employment Action | Patronizing conduct constituted adverse action | Buck suffered no adverse change in terms/benefits of employment until termination | No actionable adverse action |
| Differential Treatment | She, as a woman, was condescended to more by Penney | No evidence she was singled out; men received similar treatment | No differential treatment |
| Retaliation for Complaints | Terminated for complaining about discrimination | Termination was for behavioral reasons, not complaint about Penney | No causal link—claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. International Paper Co., 936 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2019) (addresses adverse employment action requirement in discrimination cases)
- Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2007) (clarifies adverse action and pretext standards for summary judgment in discrimination cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (framework for summary judgment)
- Foster v. Univ. of Maryland-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015) (describes burden-shifting in Title VII retaliation cases)
- Goldberg v. B. Green and Co., Inc., 836 F.2d 845 (4th Cir. 1988) (subjective beliefs do not create a genuine dispute for summary judgment)
- Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim)
- Armstrong v. Index J. Co., 647 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1981) (Title VII does not immunize insubordinate/disruptive employee behavior)
- Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346 (2024) (clarifies adverse action under Title VII must affect employment terms/conditions)