Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA LISA TRUONG, Case No. CV ‐ (PJS/BRT) Plaintiff,
v. ORDER UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS,
Defendant. Lisa Truong, pro se.
Julia H. Pozo, Allyson L. Johnson, and Kyle A. Petersen, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, defendant.
Plaintiff Lisa brings this action against current employer, Collins Aerospace (“Collins”), alleging and basis race national origin. This matter January Report Recommendation (“R&R”) Magistrate Becky R. Thorson. No. recommends granting motion for summary judgment denying cross motion summary judgment. The conducted a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on review, overrules Truong’s objection and adopts Judge Thorson’s careful and thorough R&R. does not specifically object of Judge Thorson’s factual findings or
legal conclusions. Instead, recites litany of grievances against employer— grievances that, Judge Thorson explains, do rise level of actionable claims VII. Among other things, Truong’s reiterates that: (1) she was placed on performance improvement plan in 2016 and some feedback she received in connection with plan was embarrassing upsetting; (2) she had numerous meetings with human resources (“HR”) department; (3) she received written warning in related misuse sick time; (4) she suspended pay more than month. Judge Thorson carefully analyzed each these grievances (and many others) recommending dismissal discrimination claims, adopts Thorson’s analysis its entirety.
As explains, fails several reasons, including fact action. See Grant City Blytheville (to prima facie case plaintiff must show, inter alia , he an adverse employment action). has been employed as a product inspector at since 2014, remains so employed today. 39 ‐ 1 25 ‐ 26, Throughout her tenure company, job title not changed, work schedule not fluctuated, pay increased every year. 39 ‐ 1 27, 44 ‐ 46 Jones v. City St. Louis , 825 F.3d 476, 480 (8th Cir. 2016) (“‘An adverse employment action defined as a tangible change working conditions produces material employment disadvantage, including but not limited to, termination, cuts in pay or benefits, changes affect an employee ʹ s future career prospects, as circumstances amounting constructive discharge.’” (quoting Jackman v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Dep’t Corr. Servs. , F.3d 800, 05 (8th Cir. 2013)); see Powell v. Yellow Book USA, , F.3d 1074, (8th Cir. 2006) (“We have held formal criticisms reprimands do not lead change compensation, responsibilities, or other benefits do not constitute an adverse employment action VII.” (citing Spears Mo. Dep’t Corr. & Human Res. , F.3d (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc))) ; Givens v. Cingular Wireless , F.3d (8th Cir. (“[P]lacing Givens ‘performance improvement plan,’ without more, did constitute an adverse employment action.” (citation omitted)); Singletary Mo. Dep’t Corr. 2005) (plaintiff did suffer action by being placed paid *4 administrative leave). On the record it, the cannot find Truong has an employment action, result, claim necessarily fails. (The agrees Thorson Truong failed to establish any of the actions about which Truong complains were motivated by animosity to race or nationality.) recommends dismissing harassment failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, objected to this recommendation. Even if harassment had been exhausted, would dismiss it merits. Harassment actionable Title VII unless harassment “‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions of victim’s create abusive working environment.’” Paskert Kemna ASA Auto Plaza, , ___ ___, WL 727740, *2 Feb. (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB Vinson U.S. (1986)). Even if had established alleged harassment which she complains motivated by race or national origin—and not—none comes close to clearing “high bar” severity necessary Title VII violation. id. (“[O]ur Eighth Circuit precedent sets high bar conduct be sufficiently severe pervasive order trigger VII violation. . . . [S]ome conduct beyond bounds respectful appropriate behavior is *5 nonetheless insufficient to violate VII.” (citing McMiller Metro F.3d 188 (8th Cir. 2013)).
Finally, in her to R&R, Truong asserts that between 2018, her manager repeatedly brought her to HR department after she refused to certify certain products she had inspected met customer specifications. 3. Conscious its duty to liberally construe pro se filings, interprets Truong’s assertions as attempt to revive whistleblower claim Minn. Stat. § 181.932. As explains, however, whistleblower claim not properly because it included in initial complaint, and because Truong never formally amended complaint add claim. ECF Even if it had been included complaint, whistleblower would fail merits. To violation Minn. Stat. 181.932, Truong must show, among other things, “that [she] engaged statutorily protected conduct—in other words, [she] reported violation (or suspected violation) law.” Colenburg STARCON Int’l, Inc ., F. Supp. 2d (D. Minn. 2009), aff’d 2010). she reported actual or suspected violation federal state law; instead, says “failed *6 ethically.” No. therefore raised viable whistleblower claim.
ORDER
Based foregoing, all files, records, proceedings herein, OVERRULES [ECF No. 56] ADOPTS January 27, R&R [ECF 55]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF 36] GRANTED. a. Plaintiff’s claims Minnesota Human Rights Act are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. b. Plaintiff’s VII claims—except claims related suspension failure promote 2019—are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.
c. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff’s cross motion summary judgment [ECF 42] DENIED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
[1] When joined company September defendant Rosemount Aerospace, operating under brand name “UTC Aerospace Systems.” Defendant now operating under brand name “Collins Aerospace.” ECF 2.
[2] Although pleaded complaint, subsequent filings suggest means assert retaliation Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932.
[3] discontinued plan March based improved performance.
[4] did, however, write letter attempting add this claim, as retaliation.