Held v. Ferrellgas, Inc.
505 F. App'x 687
10th Cir.
2012

Background

  • Held sued Ferrellgas under Title VII for retaliation for exercising rights.
  • District court granted summary judgment, finding no prima facie case of retaliation.
  • Held worked at Ferrellgas in Overland Park, KS; among five NACs, the only man at termination.
  • April 2009: Held reported Foresee's conduct to supervisor Potts; meeting held with Foresee and Potts.
  • April 17, 2009: Held terminated; reasons included workload, absenteeism, procedures, and teamwork concerns.
  • July 2010: Held filed suit; on appeal, court reviews de novo under McDonnell Douglas framework; affirms district court.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Was Held's belief of reverse gender discrimination reasonable? Held contends Foresee’s conduct violated Title VII as discriminatory against men. Ferrellgas argues belief was not objectively reasonable and lacked evidence of gender-based discrimination. Not objectively reasonable; reverse discrimination not shown.
Was Held's belief of a hostile work environment reasonable? Held argues Foresee’s tone and conduct created a hostile environment due to gender. Foresee’s conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter conditions or target gender. Not objectively reasonable; conduct was insufficient to create a hostile environment.

Key Cases Cited

  • Crumpacker v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 338 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2003) (reasonable, good-faith belief required for protected activity)
  • Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., 370 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 2004) (reasonable, good-faith belief in Title VII violation required)
  • Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (Supreme Court 2001) (uses elements of harassment claim to assess belief of unlawful conduct)
  • Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court 2006) (retaliation reaches beyond substantive prohibitions; focus on prong analysis)
  • Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Supreme Court 1998) (limits on Title VII protections; civility not automatically protected)
  • Petersen v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 301 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2002) (unconscionable rudeness not a Title VII violation)
  • Somoza v. Univ. of Denver, 513 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2008) (Title VII not a general civility code; requires discriminatory harassment)
  • Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2006) (evidence of gender-targeted conduct required for harassment claim)
  • Love v. RE/MAX of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d 383 (10th Cir. 1984) (good-faith belief alone insufficient after Crumpacker)
  • Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework application to retaliation claims)
  • Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2011) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation at summary judgment)
  • EEOC v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2007) (prima facie case framework and retaliation standards)
Read the full case