Heather Lopez v. Whirlpool Corporation
989 F.3d 656
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Heather Lopez worked on Whirlpool’s built-in-refrigeration line (Mar 2015–Aug 2016). A non-manager co-worker, Brian Penning, repeatedly touched Lopez after she told him to stop; conduct included touching shoulders/arm/back, blowing on a finger while calling her “baby,” and prolonged staring.
- Lopez told her supervisor Sheri Gralund she was "unnerve[d]" around Penning; Gralund said she would speak to him. Lopez later met with HR employee Sue Schoenfelder on Aug 17 and submitted a written complaint about specific workplace incidents (which did not mention the touching), though Lopez testified she also verbally described Penning’s conduct at that meeting.
- After additional hovering/staring incidents on Aug 22–23 and an HR call that questioned whether she was “overreacting,” Lopez resigned by voicemail four business days after her Aug 17 complaint.
- Lopez sued Whirlpool for sex discrimination/hostile work environment, retaliation (Title VII and Iowa Civil Rights Act), and constructive discharge. During discovery, repeated deposition scheduling delays led the magistrate judge to sanction Lopez’s counsel $2,000 under Rule 37(d); the district court upheld that order.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Whirlpool on all claims, concluding Lopez could not show harassment severe or pervasive enough, employer negligence, constructive discharge, or materially adverse retaliation. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment — severity/pervasiveness | Repeated unwanted touching, sexualized conduct, and prolonged staring created hostile environment | Conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet Title VII objective standard | Held for defendant: conduct, while improper, did not meet the high bar for objectively hostile environment |
| Employer negligence (notice/response) | Lopez told supervisor and HR (verbally) about ongoing touching; Whirlpool failed to remedy | Written complaint did not mention touching; HR had only brief notice and employer had four business days before resignation | Held for defendant: plaintiff failed to show employer knew or had reasonable time to address harassment |
| Constructive discharge | Working conditions were intolerable and forced resignation | Lopez quit four business days after complaining and did not give employer reasonable chance to fix issues | Held for defendant: no evidence of intolerable conditions or reasonable opportunity to remedy |
| Retaliation — protected activity and materially adverse action | Complaints (Aug 11 demand for HR/union and Aug 17 meeting) were protected; subsequent stare/intimidation were retaliatory and dissuasive | Aug 11 related to qualifications, not discrimination; Aug 17 written complaint omitted touching; stalking/staring incidents produced no material harm | Held for defendant: plaintiff failed to show protected opposition or material adverse action |
| Sanctions — due process and factual basis | Counsel argues lack of notice of Rule 37(d) basis and factual errors about deposition scheduling | Court provided multiple opportunities to explain; record showed counsel failed to justify cancellations | Held for defendant: sanctions affirmed; no due process violation and factual basis adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements for coworker hostile-work-environment claim)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (U.S. 2013) (employer liability for coworker harassment depends on negligence in controlling working conditions)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile work environment)
- Paskert v. Kemna-ASA Auto Plaza, Inc., 950 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2020) (circuit standard on hostile-work-environment proof and summary-judgment review)
- Eich v. Bd. of Regents for Cent. Mo. State Univ., 350 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2003) (contrast: repeated, invasive touching supported harassment claim)
- Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2010) (employer liable only if it knew or should have known and failed to take appropriate remedial action)
- Vajdl v. Mesabi Acad. of KidsPeace, Inc., 484 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2007) (constructive discharge requires intolerable conditions a reasonable person would find unbearable)
- AuBuchon v. Geithner, 743 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2014) (retaliation: materially adverse action standard — would dissuade reasonable worker)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 54 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation adverse-action test reference)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 186 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 1999) (appellate standard and due-process considerations for sanctions)