Delyorce Rebouche v. Deere & Company
786 F.3d 1083
8th Cir.2015Background
- Rebouche worked at Deere from 1977 in technical/engineering roles, rising to Grade 7 by 1988; she alleges repeated sex-based pay/grade and promotion disparities and that she was twice passed over for lab supervisor positions.
- In 1998 she and other women filed an internal HR complaint about Burris; HR investigated, sent Burris to sensitivity training, and took no further action.
- Deere implemented a company-wide Global Jobs Evaluation (GJE) from 2002–2004; Rebouche remained at Grade 7 while some (mostly male) colleagues received grade increases.
- Rebouche filed an EEOC charge in 2004 (cross-filed with Iowa), then sued in 2012 alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding pre-2004 acts time-barred, Rebouche failed to identify a proper male comparator for the 2004 GJE promotion claim, and she failed to show causal link for retaliation. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / continuing violation | Pre-2004 discrete acts are part of a continuing violation that tolls filing period | Each discrete act requires a charge within the statutory period; continuing-violation doctrine not applicable | Court held pre-2004 discrete acts are time-barred (no continuing-violation claim asserted like hostile work environment) |
| 2004 GJE — failure to promote / disparate treatment | GJE resulted in sex discrimination because men (e.g., Wilson) with similar responsibilities were upgraded while she was not | Rebouche remained at Grade 7 like many male Grade-7 peers; she failed to identify a truly similarly situated male promoted in 2004 | Court held plaintiff failed to establish prima facie disparate-treatment claim for the 2004 GJE mapping |
| Comparator evidence / similarly situated standard | Wilson was similarly situated because they had the same type of responsibilities | Wilson had a different pre-GJE title and grade; Rebouche produced no evidence comparing duties, qualifications, or histories | Court held Rebouche failed to produce necessary evidence that a comparator was similarly situated |
| Retaliation — delayed promotion / adverse action | Performance reviews and delayed promotion were retaliatory because Rebouche filed an EEOC charge in 2004 | No causal link: supervisors (Boardman) lacked knowledge of the charge; reviews were generally positive; promotions ultimately occurred | Court held plaintiff failed to show causation or a materially adverse action tied to protected activity; no prima facie retaliation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (each discrete discriminatory act starts a new limitations clock)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (prima facie burden and comparator evidence)
- Butler v. Crittenden Cnty., 708 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2012) (Morgan abrogates continuing-violation theory for discrete acts)
- Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 860 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 2015) (discrete discriminatory acts are separately actionable under Iowa law)
- AuBuchon v. Geithner, 743 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2014) (failure to promote can be an adverse employment action)
- Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of prima facie retaliation)
- Turner v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2005) (negative review alone not an adverse action unless used in promotion decision)
- Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trustees, 628 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (retaliatory intent is the ultimate question)