Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1950

Background

Ponte was hired in June 2010 as Steelcase's New England Area Manager; Robert Lau was her regional supervisor and she reported performance problems from early in her tenure.
In July 2010, at a company training, Lau twice drove Ponte to her hotel and (according to Ponte) placed his arm on her shoulder and implied she "owed" him for getting the job; Ponte told some peers but did not report the incidents to management at the time.
Ponte received ongoing coaching, was given a negative MAPP performance review in April 2011 (overall: "Below Performance Expectations"), and Steelcase documented multiple dealer complaints about her preparation, communication, and sales results.
Ponte called HR (Chestnut) in Feb–Mar 2011 and told her she felt uncomfortable with Lau and that something in July had impacted her performance, but she did not describe the events as sexual harassment or seek disciplinary action; she also emailed HR in April about concerns but declined to have Chestnut share contents with Lau.
Steelcase decided to terminate Ponte in May 2011 after continued performance issues, mistakes during May, and consultations among Lau, his supervisor, HR, and legal; Ponte was fired on May 27 and later sued for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
The district court granted summary judgment for Steelcase; the First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the two July incidents did not create a hostile work environment as a matter of law, and (2) Ponte failed to show but-for causation for Title VII retaliation under Nassar or to prove pretext for termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hostile work environment (sexual harassment)	The two car-ride incidents were unwelcome sexual conduct that altered terms/conditions of employment.	The conduct was isolated, brief, non-threatening, and not severe or pervasive enough to meet the Title VII standard.	Affirmed: two isolated shoulder touches and comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
Protected activity (retaliation)	Ponte's Feb–Mar 2011 call to HR implicitly complained about Lau and thus constituted protected opposition to sex discrimination.	The call was vague, did not describe sexual harassment, and did not clearly invoke protected activity.	Court assumed (but doubted) the call might be protected but found causation/prima facie failure regardless.
Causation standard for Title VII retaliation	Ponte argued temporal proximity and subsequent termination supported inference of retaliation.	Steelcase argued termination was for legitimate, preexisting performance reasons and lawful business processes were followed.	Affirmed: under Nassar's but-for standard, Ponte failed to show protected activity was the but-for cause of termination.
Pretext for termination	Ponte contended performance metrics were manipulated (e.g., sales crediting) and termination was pretextual for retaliation.	Steelcase produced contemporaneous complaints, poor sales numbers, corrective coaching, and multi-person sign-off on termination; sales adjustments had non-retaliatory explanations.	Affirmed: Ponte did not present specific facts showing the employer's proffered reason was a sham; evidence supported termination for legitimate performance reasons.

Key Cases Cited

Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (hostile work environment requires conduct to be severe or pervasive)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (terms and conditions standard for hostile-environment liability)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial employment discrimination/retaliation claims)
Gerald v. Univ. of P.R., 707 F.3d 7 (First Circuit discussion of hostile work environment and retaliation standards)