Clark v. Cache Valley Electric Co.
573 F. App'x 693
10th Cir.2014Background
- Kenyon Brady Clark worked at Cache Valley Electric from 1998 and became a Teledata Division project manager in 2006; his supervisor was Myron Perschon and a co‑worker was project manager Melissa Silver.
- Clark alleged Perschon gave Silver preferential assignments, pay, bonuses, and other perks because Perschon and Silver were (or acted like) romantically/sexually involved; Clark claimed this favoritism harmed him professionally.
- Clark repeatedly complained internally (April–November 2010) to COO Nathan Wickizer, HR, and the CEO about the alleged relationship, favoritism, and resulting hostile/unproductive work environment; he later sent a written complaint on November 10, 2010.
- Cache Valley investigated, Perschon and Silver denied any sexual/personal relationship, and management told Clark it would not police employees’ off‑duty conduct; Clark continued to complain about favoritism and alleged retaliation by Perschon.
- Cache Valley terminated Clark; Clark sued under Title VII alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for Cache Valley; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perschon’s favoritism toward Silver states a Title VII sex‑discrimination claim | Clark contends favoritism toward Silver was sex‑based discrimination disadvantaging male employees | Cache Valley argues favoritism stemmed from a personal/romantic relationship or friendship (paramour preference), not gender | Court held favoritism for a paramour/friend is not gender discrimination; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether Clark’s complaints support a retaliation claim under Title VII | Clark contends he reasonably and in good faith opposed unlawful sex discrimination and was fired for complaining (including the November 10 letter) | Cache Valley contends Clark lacked an objectively reasonable belief that Title VII was violated; any complaints concerned paramour favoritism, not sex discrimination | Court held Clark lacked an objectively reasonable good‑faith belief that the conduct violated Title VII; retaliation claim fails and summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment and inference of discrimination)
- Taken v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) (preferential treatment for a consensual romantic relationship is not gender discrimination)
- Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 493 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (friendship/cronyism that benefits a nonprotected person is not Title VII discrimination)
- Neal v. Roche, 349 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases on nepotism/friendship/paramour preferences outside Title VII)
- Kelly v. Shapiro & Associates, 716 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff lacked objectively reasonable belief that paramour preference constituted Title VII violation; persuasive on retaliation element)