Janet R. Kerns v. Capital Graphics, Inc., Doing Business as Clarinda Company
178 F.3d 1011, 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,893, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11198 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adverse employment action under Title VII must constitute a material employment disadvantage, such as termination, a decrease in pay or benefits, or a change that tangibly affects future career prospects. Minor changes in duties, increased supervision, or negative criticism that do not alter salary, title, or benefits are insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Janet Kerns worked as a personnel administrator for Clarinda Company, a division of Capital Graphics, under president Ron Castiglioni, who was widely considered a difficult person to work for.
- In a January 1996 meeting, Castiglioni asked Kerns if she knew of anything improper 'going on' between manager Kevin Andersen and supervisor Alicia McCollum.
- Kerns interpreted this as a request to investigate, so she questioned both employees, reviewed their attendance records, and concluded the rumors were false.
- Kerns sent a memo to Castiglioni and several others stating the 'insinuations of a sexual nature' were 'totally and absolutely unfounded' and harmful.
- Castiglioni, claiming he never authorized a formal investigation, reprimanded Kerns in writing for incompetence, violating confidentiality, and exercising poor judgment.
- Following this incident, Castiglioni began supervising Kerns more closely, had her move to a smaller office, changed her reporting structure, and required his approval for any action outside her normal duties.
- Over the next few weeks, Castiglioni sent Kerns several more critical memos regarding her job performance on various tasks.
- After receiving a final critical memo on March 27, Kerns became upset, went to another manager, and resigned from her position.
Procedural Posture:
- Janet Kerns filed discrimination charges with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- Kerns then filed a lawsuit against Capital Graphics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court (the court of first instance), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation.
- Capital Graphics filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case without a full trial.
- The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Kerns's claims.
- Kerns, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Capital Graphics as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do an employer's actions—including increased supervision, criticism of work performance, changing an employee's reporting structure, and moving her office—constitute an 'adverse employment action' sufficient to support a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII when they do not affect the employee's title, salary, or benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Circuit Judge.
No, such actions do not constitute an adverse employment action. To establish a prima facie case for discrimination, a plaintiff must show they suffered an adverse employment action that produces a 'material employment disadvantage.' The court found that Kerns failed to meet this standard. The actions taken by Castiglioni, such as criticizing her performance, increasing supervision, and moving her office, were minor changes in working conditions that did not materially alter the terms of her employment, as her job title, salary, and benefits remained unchanged. Furthermore, her resignation did not qualify as a constructive discharge because the conditions, while unpleasant, were not so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. The court also noted that even if an adverse action had occurred, Kerns failed to show that the employer's stated, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions—namely, her poor judgment and work performance—were a pretext for discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the definition of an 'adverse employment action' in the Eighth Circuit, establishing a high threshold for plaintiffs. By holding that increased scrutiny, negative feedback, and minor alterations to working conditions are not materially adverse, the court makes it more difficult for employees to sustain discrimination claims that are not tied to tangible economic or career-altering consequences. This precedent reinforces the principle that Title VII is not a 'general civility code' and protects employers from liability for ordinary workplace conflicts or management actions that do not result in a material change to the employment relationship. Consequently, future plaintiffs in this circuit must demonstrate a more concrete and significant harm to survive summary judgment.
