Michael Sellers v. Deere & Company
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11506, 31 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1345, 791 F.3d 938 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Minor or unwelcome changes in job duties that do not cause a materially significant disadvantage, particularly in a role defined as dynamic, do not constitute an adverse employment action. Additionally, isolated incidents of rude or unpleasant behavior are not severe or pervasive enough to create a legally actionable hostile work environment.
Facts:
- In 2001, Michael Sellers, a longtime employee of Deere & Company, was moved into a 'Process Pro' position by his new manager, Clyde D’Cruz; the position was described as 'dynamic' and 'fluid' with no change to pay or benefits.
- Sellers overheard D'Cruz make derogatory comments about older employees, such as calling them 'old farts' and 'sheep that can be slaughtered,' and warned D'Cruz that this sounded like age discrimination.
- On two separate occasions in 2003, D'Cruz became frustrated with Sellers, yelling at and berating him in front of other employees.
- In late 2003, after a new supervisor, Daria Jerauld, was hired, Sellers's duties began to increase significantly; he was assigned to supervise three people and took on the work of others.
- Sellers informed Jerauld he was struggling with depression and his workload was unmanageable, but she told him not to tell D'Cruz and that he was the only one who could do the work.
- In late 2004, Sellers, who was struggling with concentration and memory issues due to his mental health, was denied the use of conference rooms and his request for new duties to be put in writing was refused.
- On March 1, 2005, Sellers took medical leave from which he did not return.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 26, 2005, Michael Sellers filed a discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC issued Sellers a right-to-sue letter on April 17, 2012.
- Sellers filed suit against Deere & Company and Clyde D'Cruz in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court (a federal trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding Sellers had not suffered an adverse employment action and the facts did not support a hostile work environment claim.
- Sellers, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
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 of significantly increasing an employee's workload in a position defined as 'dynamic,' coupled with isolated incidents of a supervisor yelling, constitute an adverse employment action or a hostile work environment sufficient to support claims of discrimination and retaliation?
Opinions:
Majority - Riley, Chief Judge
No. The increase in Sellers's job duties did not constitute an adverse employment action, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. An adverse employment action must be a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material disadvantage. Sellers's 'Process Pro' position was explicitly defined as dynamic and fluid, where changing duties were an expected part of the job. Therefore, an increased workload did not materially change the terms of his employment. Furthermore, to be actionable, a hostile work environment must be characterized by harassment so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment. The two incidents of D'Cruz yelling at Sellers, while rude, were isolated over a four-year period and do not meet this high threshold. Other complaints, such as being denied use of a conference room, were minor slights, not severe harassment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for establishing an 'adverse employment action' and 'hostile work environment' in the Eighth Circuit. It demonstrates that not all negative workplace experiences are legally actionable, distinguishing between material disadvantages and mere inconveniences. The ruling reinforces that the nature of the job itself is critical; if a position is defined by changing responsibilities, an increased workload is less likely to be considered an adverse action. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs in similar roles to succeed on discrimination claims based on evolving job duties or isolated incidents of managerial misconduct.
