Gage Elon Hunter v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
697 F.3d 697
8th Cir.
2012

Background

  • UPS hires 40 of 200–300 applicants monthly for part-time package handler; position requires heavy lifting and has benefits.
  • Interviews last 7–15 minutes; focus on likelihood of staying, benefits interest, job history, and ability to perform functions; codes determine second interview eligibility.
  • Hunter, born female, identified as male; applied in 2008 under birth name Jessica Axt and later presented as male.
  • Hunter faced initial interview denial due to not being on interview list; after tours, he eventually received an interview in April 2008.
  • Trendle, the interviewer, coded Hunter's application as “poor interview answers” and cited problematic job history; Trendle also allegedly told Hunter UPS was not hiring.
  • District court granted summary judgment in UPS’s favor; Hunter appeals with Title VII, MHRA, and ADA claims; issue centers on legitimacy of reasons and potential discrimination based on gender non-conformity.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Prima facie discrimination under MHRA/Title VII Hunter asserts protected status misused (gender/sexual orientation). No evidence Trendle knew of protected status or discriminated on that basis. No prima facie showing; protected status not shown to be known or relied upon.
Pretext for discrimination UPS’s reasons are shifting and-gender non-conformity evidence. UPS provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons (poor interview responses, bad job history). No triable issue; reasons are legitimate and not shown to be pretextual.
Gender non-conformity as a basis for discrimination Discrimination occurred due to Hunter's gender expression. No evidence Trendle knew Hunter’s protected status or discriminated on that basis. Rejected; no evidence of awareness or discrimination tied to protected status.

Key Cases Cited

  • Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (gender stereotyping may violate Title VII)
  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (framework for indirect discrimination claims)
  • Sigurdson v. Isanti Cty., 386 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1986) (MHRA use of McDonnell Douglas framework)
  • Wayne v. MasterShield, Inc., 597 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (weight given to federal Title VII interpretations)
  • Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2003) (awareness of protected status required for discrimination claim)
  • Lubetsky v. Applied Card Systems, Inc., 296 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002) (awareness/discernment of protected status considerations)
  • Loeb v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 537 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2008) (false reasons may imply discrimination, but not automatic)
  • Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 596 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2010) (unjustified shifting reasons not automatic inference)
  • Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (uneven application of criteria may support discrimination inference)
  • Wingate v. Gage Cnty. Sch. Dist., 528 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2008) (subjective criteria permissible when balanced with objective criteria)
  • Harrison v. United Auto Grp., 492 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2007) (prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
Read the full case