Robin Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24288

Walker worked at Mod-U-Kraf Homes in finishing positions (primarily caulking/painting) and alleged repeated sexualized comments and gestures by co-workers (chiefly David Mullins, later James Young) occurring several times per week over ~1+ years.
Specific conduct included crotch-grabbing, lewd comments (e.g., “these nuts are looking for you,” “wiener in the mouth”), tongue gestures, sexually explicit remarks directed at Walker and about her to a boyfriend/co-worker, and similar conduct toward other female employees.
Walker reported the harassment repeatedly to her line lead (Sandra Burnopp) and her supervisor (Wayne Craiger); limited corrective action followed and complaints persisted.
On July 20, 2011, a physical altercation occurred between Walker (and her boyfriend Cassidy) and Mullins; witnesses (other than Walker/Cassidy) described Walker as an initiator who laid hands on Mullins.
Mod-U-Kraf suspended/then terminated Walker (and suspended/terminated Cassidy) after investigating the altercation; the company later issued a disciplinary notice to Mullins instructing him not to make comments under the anti-harassment policy.
Walker sued under Title VII for hostile work environment (sexual harassment) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to employer on both claims. The Fourth Circuit vacated summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim and affirmed summary judgment on retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to state a hostile work environment under Title VII	Walker: repeated, frequent sexualized comments/gestures over an extended period, made to her and others, and management failed to stop them — a reasonable juror could find an objectively hostile environment	Mod-U-Kraf: conduct was inappropriate but not of the magnitude (e.g., touching, threats, demonstrations of sexual acts) required as a matter of law to be objectively severe or pervasive	Vacated district court judgment and remanded: factual dispute exists and reasonable jurors could differ; summary judgment inappropriate on severity/pervasiveness prong
Whether Walker showed pretext for retaliation after termination (McDonnell Douglas framework)	Walker: timing of termination after complaints, differential treatment (Mullins not fired), paperwork showing eligibility for rehire, and failure to follow harassment policy support inference of pretext	Mod-U-Kraf: legitimate, nonretaliatory reason — termination for participation in physical altercation; investigation and witness statements support that reason; comparative evidence fails because employer did not view Mullins as similarly situated	Affirmed district court judgment: Walker failed to present sufficient evidence to show employer’s articulated reason was pretextual

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment standard: severe or pervasive conduct that alters employment conditions)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (objective severity judged from reasonable person in plaintiff’s position; consider all circumstances)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (circumstantial evidence may show pretext; court must assess whether evidence could permit jury to infer discrimination)
EEOC v. R&R Ventures, 244 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2001) (Title VII hostile work environment principles)
Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2008) (objective severity measured against precedents that survived summary judgment)
Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2011) (totality of circumstances includes conduct directed at others)
Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (harassment need not include sexual advances or touching to be actionable)