Sanderson v. Wyoming Highway Patrol
976 F.3d 1164
| 10th Cir. | 2020Background
- Sanderson, a WHP trooper hired in 2007 with strong performance reviews, became WHP’s first female K9 handler and was assigned to Division O in 2015.
- She experienced persistent sex‑based rumors (called the “division bicycle,” accused of trading sex for advantages) and ostracism by Division O colleagues; she complained to supervisors several times.
- After a February 2016 training incident (she called a dog trainer an “asshole”), Sanderson was disciplined and demoted in April 2016; WHP contended she was simply a poor fit and abrasive.
- Sanderson filed an EEOC charge on October 27, 2016, received a right‑to‑sue letter, and sued WHP under Title VII alleging discrimination, hostile work environment (sex), and retaliation.
- The district court dismissed her retaliation claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, excluded her proffered expert (Linda Forst), and granted summary judgment to WHP on the hostile‑work‑environment claim.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim and exclusion of the expert, but reversed the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre‑suit administrative remedies were exhausted for the retaliation theory alleging pre‑demotion complaints caused demotion | Sanderson: EEOC process (including her response to employer position statement) put WHP on notice of pre‑demotion complaints and retaliation theory | WHP: EEOC charge did not allege pre‑demotion complaints; responsive documents cannot expand the charge | Affirmed dismissal for failure to exhaust — scope is determined by the Charge itself (no enlargement by plaintiff’s later response) |
| Admissibility of Sanderson’s expert (Forst) on gender stereotyping and police culture under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Sanderson: Forst’s experience and report would explain gender stereotypes and workplace culture to the jury | WHP: Forst’s opinions lack reliable methodology and merely state matters within juror common knowledge | Affirmed exclusion — district court did not abuse discretion in finding Forst unreliable and unhelpful |
| Whether Sanderson’s work environment was hostile because of sex (sufficiency of sex‑based and sex‑neutral evidence) | Sanderson: Repeated sexual rumors, sex‑based comments, ostracism, and contextual culture in Division O show sex‑based hostility | WHP: Incidents are isolated, non‑severe, and not part of pervasive sexual harassment | Reversed summary judgment — a reasonable jury could find the conduct (sexual rumors + ostracism) severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Cheyenne Ret. Inv’rs L.P., 904 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2018) (scope of EEOC investigation is determined by the Charge itself)
- Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co., 900 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2018) (Title VII claims are generally limited to timely EEOC charges)
- Medina v. Income Support Div., 413 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2005) (elements of hostile work environment claim under Title VII)
- Fye v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm’n, 516 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (protected activity under Title VII includes informal complaints)
- O’Shea v. Yellow Tech. Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 1999) (hostile‑work‑environment claims must be viewed in context; neutral conduct can support claim when viewed with overtly sex‑based conduct)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile work environment claim may comprise a series of acts and untimely acts can be used as background if at least one act falls within the filing period)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (expert testimony must be reliable and relevant under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific, experience‑based expert testimony)
- Morris v. City of Colorado Springs, 666 F.3d 654 (10th Cir. 2012) (examples of when courts have found harassment not sufficiently severe or pervasive)
- Sprague v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 129 F.3d 1355 (10th Cir. 1997) (court affirmed summary judgment where limited sexually oriented comments were insufficient under the totality of circumstances)