A Supervisor’s “Reprehensible and Improper” Behavior Not Enough to Prove Hostile Work Environment Claim in Eighth Circuit
By Aaron Chaet
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’FN1 high bar for Title VII hostile work environment claims remains after the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case on December 7, 2020.FN2 The Eighth Circuit previously held in Paskert v. Kemna-ASA Auto Plaza, Inc, that a supervisor’s boorish behavior, “while certainly reprehensible and improper,” was not so severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment necessary to sustain a Title VII hostile work environment claim.FN3
In this case, the inappropriate conduct included an instance when the supervisor attempted to rub Ms. Paskert’s shoulders, openly bragged about his purported sexual conquests, and made statements that that the supervisor could “have Paskert,” that he should have never hired a female, and that wanted to make Ms. Paskert cry. Despite acknowledging that the behavior was “inappropriate and should never be tolerated in the workplace,” the Eighth Circuit determined that it did not constitute a hostile work environment as it did not meet the severe and pervasive standard applied by in that Circuit.FN4
TAKEAWAY
Conduct that rises to the level of a hostile work environment claim is largely dependent upon the circuit court and the precedent rulings of its jurisdiction. Although the employer successfully moved for summary judgment on explosive claims of hostile work environment, the court repeatedly took the employer to task for its supervisors “reprehensible and improper” conduct. Accordingly, employers should remain vigilant and provide annual sexual harassment training to its employees. Please reach out to Campbell Litigation for any questions or concerns relating to claims of a hostile work environment as well as the need for supervisor and employee trainings.
Footnotes:
FN1 – The Eighth Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas.
FN2 – Paskert v. Kemna-ASA Auto Plaza, Inc., 2020 WL 7132262 (U.S., Dec. 7, 2020).
FN3 – Paskert v. Kemna-ASA Auto Plaza, Inc., 950 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2020).
FN4 – In its decision, the appellate court, heavily relied upon a precedent case, Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2002), wherein it did not find a supervisor’s conduct to be sufficient severe or pervasive despite that the supervisor sexually propositioning the plaintiff, repeatedly touching her hand, requesting that she draw an image of a phallic object to demonstrate her qualification for a position, and displayed a poster portraying the plaintiff as the “president and CEO of the Man Hater’s Club of America.”