Michael Sellers v. Deere & Company
791 F.3d 938
8th Cir.2015Background
- Sellers, employed by Deere since 1979, was moved from Supply Management Specialist to Process Pro in 2001, a lateral move with no pay change.
- D’Cruz, Sellers’ manager, became hostile toward older employees and made age-disparaging comments; Sellers criticized this.
- In 2003–2004, D’Cruz and Jerauld assigned more duties to Sellers, who began experiencing depression, later diagnosed as PTSD, and took medical leave in March 2005.
- Sellers alleged increased workload, inability to write down new duties, and supervision of three employees, while arguing the GJE reclassified his position in a way that harmed advancement.
- Sellers filed EEOC charges in 2005; after investigation, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter in 2012, and this federal suit followed; the district court granted summary judgment to Deere.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sellers suffered an adverse employment action | Sellers alleges GJE demotion and increased workload harmed duties | No material negative change; GJE changed title without affecting conditions | No adverse action; both theories fail |
| Whether the GJE claim was properly preserved and actionable | GJE was a discrete adverse action affecting employment | GJE not raised in EEOC Charge; even if raised, no adverse impact | Not preserved; even if considered, there was no actionable adverse action |
| Whether the increased workload constituted an adverse action | Additional duties changed the terms of employment | Duties were within the dynamic Process Pro role; no material disadvantage | Not an adverse action; changes were expected in a dynamic role |
| Whether Sellers established a hostile work environment | At least two severe incidents plus ongoing mistreatment | Incidents were isolated and not severe enough to affect employment terms | No hostile environment; incidents not sufficient |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on all claims | There were genuine disputes as to material facts | No genuine disputes; no adverse action or hostile environment | Summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2005) (liberal reading of claims; discrete actions must be presented to EEOC)
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (adverse action requires material change in terms or conditions)
- Fisher v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, 225 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2000) (transfer or title change must accompany material adverse impact)
- Jackman v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 728 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2013) (minor changes in duties do not constitute adverse action)
- Howard v. Columbia Pub. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2004) (negative evaluations alone do not prove adverse action)
- Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2005) (discrete discrimination claims require EEOC exhaustion)
- Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2012) (discrimination claims require discrete analyses of incidents)