Loretta Rester v. Stephens Media
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 598
8th Cir.2014Background
- Rester, a graphic designer, alleged Title VII and Arkansas discrimination claims against Stephens Media and managers Byrd and Elderton.
- On April 13, 2011, Elderton allegedly slammed a desk, cursed, and physically blocked Rester from leaving during a review dispute.
- Rester reported the incident within days and met with Byrd and HR; no disciplinary action against Elderton followed.
- Rester resigned on May 4, 2011, after indicating she would consider continuing her job; Byrd referenced Elderton’s impending retirement.
- Rester sued for sex discrimination, hostile environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment on federal claims.
- Appellate court reviews de novo; summary judgment proper where no genuine material fact exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there adverse action and differential treatment in sex discrimination claim? | Rester asserts adverse action and sex-based differential treatment. | Defendants contend no adverse action or sex-based disparity. | No genuine issue; no adverse action or different sex-based treatment. |
| Did the harassment constitute a hostile work environment? | Elderton's conduct created a discriminatory hostile environment. | Single incident not severe or pervasive enough to be hostile environment. | Not a prima facie hostile environment; district court's ruling affirmed. |
| Did Rester's claim of constructive discharge prevail? | Harassment rendered conditions intolerable and forced quitting. | Employer sought to retain Rester; no forced quit or intolerable conditions proven. | Constructive discharge claim failed; no intolerable conditions proven. |
| Was there prima facie case of retaliation? | Protected conduct followed by adverse action linked to retaliation. | No adverse or materially adverse action; no causal link established. | No retaliation claim; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkie v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 638 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2011) (defines adverse employment action for Title VII actions)
- St. Martin v. City of St. Paul, 680 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard; jury question need for material facts)
- Jackman v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 728 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2013) (no adverse action or discrimination evidence; retaliation standard)
- Cross v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack & Casino, Inc., 615 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2010) (hostile environment threshold; totality of circumstances)
- O’Brien v. Dep’t of Agric., 532 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2008) (hostile environment and constructive discharge principles)
- Meriwether v. Caraustar Packaging Co., 326 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2003) (authority for hostility standards and context)
- Alagna v. Smithville R-II Sch. Dist., 324 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2003) (extremity of conduct in hostile environment analysis)
- Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2002) (context for hostile environment and discrimination analyses)