Nancy Heisler v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co, 931 F.3d 786

Background

Nancy Heisler, a long‑time Nationwide employee and certified public accountant, held senior finance roles (AVP/Senior Director) and sought several promotions/transfer opportunities from 2011–2015; many selections went to younger employees.
Tension with manager Wendell Crosser arose after Heisler sought higher pay for an out‑of‑state transfer and sent a candid e‑mail; Crosser reacted angrily and complained to others.
Nationwide reorganized in 2014, eliminated Heisler’s Senior Director position in March 2015, placed her on administrative leave, and later offered her a lower‑level Senior Consultant role with a salary reduction.
Heisler filed an administrative charge in June 2015 and sued in October 2015 asserting sex and age discrimination (Title VII, ADEA, ICRA), Equal Pay Act, and retaliation (Title VII, ADEA, FLSA).
The district court granted summary judgment for Nationwide; the magistrate judge’s R&R was adopted and Heisler’s motion to supplement the record was denied.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding Heisler failed to show pretext that adverse actions were motivated by age or sex rather than by non‑protected conduct (e.g., being “too direct”) and failed to create a triable issue on several challenged rejections or pay claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sex and age discrimination in hiring/promotions (Title VII, ICRA, ADEA)	Heisler: repeated rejections, demotion, and hire of younger employees show discrimination and pretext.	Nationwide: articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (poor interviews, manager objections, reorganizations); plaintiff cannot show pretext or but‑for causation.	Affirmed for Nationwide; plaintiff failed to prove pretext or that age/sex motivated adverse actions.
Retaliation (Title VII, ADEA, FLSA)	Heisler: complaints and internal communications constitute protected activity and led to adverse actions.	Nationwide: several complaints were not protected (no reasonable belief of unlawful conduct); no causal link established.	Affirmed; many communications not protected and no evidence of causation for timely claims.
Equal Pay Act / pay discrimination	Heisler: paid less than male comparators for equal work.	Nationwide: plaintiff waived most comparator arguments and conceded one invalid; insufficient timely comparator evidence.	Affirmed; EPA/ICRA pay claims fail for lack of valid comparators and timeliness.
Procedure: summary judgment standard and motion to supplement record	Heisler: district court misapplied summary judgment standard and wrongly denied supplementation of late evidence.	Nationwide: summary judgment properly applied; district court not required to permit belated supplementation to fix omissions.	Affirmed; no reversible error—court properly applied standards and declined to admit late evidence.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for indirect evidence of discrimination)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (en banc) (Eighth Circuit standard on summary judgment and proving pretext)
Grant v. City of Blytheville, 841 F.3d 767 (discusses McDonnell Douglas application in this circuit)
Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414 (Equal Pay Act/ICRA elements)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment procedure and standards)
Brannum v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 518 F.3d 542 (protected activity requires good‑faith, reasonable belief of unlawful practice)
Ridout v. JBS USA, LLC, 716 F.3d 1079 (distinguishing ADEA’s but‑for causation from mixed‑motives standards)
Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507 (ADEA causation standard)