Wendy Fiero v. CSG Systems, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13635

Fiero worked at CSG as a business analyst (2006–2009), was promoted in April 2009, then reassigned to a more technically demanding analyst role after her team was eliminated.
Her new supervisor, Ambekar, after six weeks concluded she lacked required technical/domain skills and assigned a "mapping project" to develop those skills.
Over several reviews in 2010 Ambekar warned Fiero about continued performance deficiencies, issued a formal verbal warning, and placed her on a 30-day performance improvement plan (PIP) on November 1, which she signed.
Fiero filed an EEOC charge after being placed on the PIP but before termination; CSG concluded she had not met PIP objectives and discharged her.
Fiero sued in state court asserting Title VII claims for gender discrimination and retaliation; CSG removed to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment for CSG. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fiero established a prima facie Title VII gender-discrimination claim and rebutted CSG’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason	Fiero contends she was disciplined/terminated because of her sex and that a male coworker (Hadland) with similar or worse performance was treated more favorably	CSG argues it terminated Fiero for legitimate, documented performance deficiencies (unfinished mapping project, lack of domain expertise, poor designs causing delays)	Court assumed prima facie case but held CSG provided legitimate reasons and Fiero failed to show pretext; summary judgment for CSG
Whether placement on PIP and subsequent termination constituted unlawful retaliation for filing an EEOC charge	Fiero argues placement on PIP after her complaint and then termination were retaliatory acts	CSG contends the PIP and termination were nondiscriminatory, performance-based actions	Court assumed prima facie retaliation possible but held Fiero did not show pretext; placement on PIP alone was not an adverse action; summary judgment for CSG

Wells v. SCI Mgmt., L.P., 469 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard and McDonnell Douglas framework in Eighth Circuit)
Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (Title VII discrimination standard)
Putnam v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2003) (burden-shifting and pretext discussion)
Barnhardt v. Open Harvest Co-op., 742 F.3d 365 (8th Cir. 2014) (performance deficiencies as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (employer’s honest belief standard for pretext)
Givens v. Cingular Wireless, 396 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2005) (placement on a PIP alone does not constitute an adverse employment action)
Fischer v. Andersen Corp., 483 F.3d 553 (8th Cir. 2007) (placement on PIP insufficient to show adverse action)