Sims v. Met Council

Background

Stephanie Sims was a bus driver for Metro Transit from September 2013 until July 2017. In January 2017, she saw two brief scenes containing nudity from the Netflix series "Luke Cage" playing on a television in a drivers’ lounge. She objected, and the television was turned off after her complaints. She also reported hearing coworkers use the words "boner" and "johnson." The opinion states that those conversations were not about or directed at her and that managers immediately counseled the employees involved.

Sims reported the television incident to several managers. According to the opinion, managers disabled the television’s connection to the streaming device, removed the device, gave Sims workplace sexual-harassment policies and the union’s telephone number, counseled the employee who brought the device, and spoke with other employees about respectful-workplace and anti-retaliation policies.

Sims later reported that coworkers were angry with her and planned to confront her. Her supervisor offered suggestions to help her feel safe. Sims rejected those suggestions and submitted a doctor’s note stating that she could not have contact with Metro Transit employees. Metro Transit then terminated her employment.

Sims originally brought six causes of action against Metro Transit, the Met Council, and Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1005. The court had previously dismissed the claims against the union with prejudice. The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment. The claims remaining against them included termination under the federal employment-discrimination law known as Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, retaliation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior liability, vicarious liability, and negligence in handling Sims’s complaint.

Court’s Analysis

Sexual-harassment claims. The court held that Sims’s exposure to two scenes of nudity, each lasting less than a minute, could not reasonably be viewed as a hostile or abusive work environment. Even considering the other comments she said she heard, the court found that the conduct was not severe or widespread enough to alter the conditions of her employment.

The court also stated that the television was available for all drivers, male and female, to see, and that the scenes were not directed at Sims because she was a woman. In addition, the court found that the defendants took prompt corrective action after receiving her complaints. The court therefore rejected her sexual-harassment claims under both Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Retaliation claim. The court found that Sims engaged in protected activity by complaining to supervisors and that her termination was an adverse employment action. But it held that she offered no evidence that her complaints caused the termination. The evidence instead showed that Metro Transit acted after a psychologist stated that Sims could not have contact with Metro Transit employees or return to work. The court also noted that Metro Transit initially placed Sims on paid administrative leave and held her job open for months while considering how she could return safely.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court applied Minnesota law, which requires proof that the plaintiff was in a zone of danger of physical impact, reasonably feared for her own safety, and suffered severe emotional distress with physical symptoms. The court held that Sims had not shown that she was in actual physical danger. It found that third-party threats were not attributable to the defendants and that the coworkers’ arguments and one chopping-hand gesture did not establish a qualifying danger.

The opinion further states that Sims’s opposition brief did not address her negligence or vicarious-liability claims, appearing to concede that summary judgment should be granted on those claims. The court’s conclusion states that Sims failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. It also ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. The order was signed by United States District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson.