Rech v. Alter Trading Corporation

Background

Gerri Rech worked as a scale clerk at Alter Trading Corporation’s St. Paul facility from October 2008 until November 2015. She claimed that supervisor Gary Stevens repeatedly insulted and harassed her because she was a woman, including calling her a “dumb broad,” saying he did not want to work with women, and making other comments. She also claimed that general manager Doug Reisdorfer later placed inaccurate or exaggerated negative reports in her personnel file after she reported Stevens’s conduct.

Rech took medical leave in July 2015. Alter stated that she stopped providing requested medical information, did not tell the company when she planned to return after her leave expired, and was selected for a company-wide reduction in force because of her performance reports, her failure to communicate about returning to work, and her failure to return after exhausting leave. Rech was the only female among the 11 employees in the Northern Lakes Region selected for the reduction. Alter also stated that it did not refill her position until May 2017, when it hired a female employee.

Rech brought a hostile-work-environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and wrongful-discharge claims under that statute and Title VII. Alter moved for summary judgment on all claims. In opposing the motion, Rech submitted a declaration that contradicted parts of her deposition testimony. The court disregarded the declaration to the extent it contradicted her earlier sworn testimony, because a party generally cannot create a factual dispute by later contradicting deposition testimony without confusion or mistake.

Court’s analysis

The court first considered the hostile-work-environment claim. It rejected Alter’s argument that the claim was untimely because Rech alleged that harassment continued after the August 2014 incident, including through negative performance reports and continued verbal harassment before her medical leave.

The court nevertheless ruled that the claim failed on its merits. A hostile-work-environment claim requires proof that the unwelcome harassment was connected to the plaintiff’s protected status, affected a term or condition of employment, and was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would consider the workplace hostile or abusive. Viewing the evidence in Rech’s favor, the court held that the alleged conduct did not meet that high standard. The court noted that Rech’s belief that the conduct forced her to take medical leave did not control the objective legal analysis.

The court then applied the burden-shifting framework used for the Title VII and Minnesota Human Rights Act wrongful-discharge claims. Rech had to make an initial showing that she was meeting Alter’s legitimate expectations, suffered an adverse employment action, and was treated differently from similarly situated male employees. Because the termination occurred during a reduction in force, she also had to make an additional showing that gender was a factor in her termination.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Rech’s negative performance reports could have been retaliation for reporting harassment. Even so, it held that her failure to give Alter information about when she could return to work after medical leave meant she was not meeting the company’s legitimate employment expectations. The court also found no evidence supporting the required additional showing that gender influenced her termination, or that Alter’s stated reasons were a pretext for sex discrimination. Rech therefore failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on her discrimination claims.

Disposition

The court granted Alter Trading Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The order stated: “LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.”