Kempf v. Hennepin County

Background

Anita M. Kempf worked as an architect for Hennepin County from 1997 to 2016 and was a Senior Project Architect in 2016. The opinion describes a March 9, 2016 workplace incident involving Kempf and Division Manager Jay Biedny. Kempf said Biedny entered her workspace, spoke loudly, stood close behind her chair, and made her fear that an assault was imminent. Biedny gave a different account, saying Kempf screamed at him and slammed the door while forcing him into the hallway. Other employees reported hearing Kempf scream.

The County investigated the incident and suspended Kempf without pay for five days. The suspension notice cited misconduct, performance deficiencies, Kempf’s interaction with Deputy Director Barbara O’Brien, and an earlier oral reprimand. Kempf did not appeal the suspension within the required five working days.

Kempf later complained about management behavior. The County then cited additional events, including missed or incomplete project estimates, unauthorized access to a client’s office suite, allegedly aggressive behavior toward a client, and conduct at a client meeting described by an attendee as abrasive, disrespectful, and unprofessional. The County placed Kempf on paid administrative leave and issued a notice of intent to dismiss her. Kempf resigned instead of being terminated.

Claims and Legal Standards

Kempf initially asserted seven counts. She voluntarily dismissed four after Hennepin County moved for summary judgment. The remaining claims were one Title VII sex-discrimination claim and two retaliation claims—one under Title VII and one under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify significant evidence supporting the claim.

For the discrimination and retaliation claims, the court applied the burden-shifting framework used when a plaintiff relies on indirect evidence. Under that framework, the plaintiff must first present evidence supporting the basic elements of the claim. The employer must then identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory or nonretaliatory reason for its action. The burden returns to the plaintiff to present evidence that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext—that is, a cover for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

Retaliation Claims: Counts Three and Six

The court explained that Kempf had to show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between them. Kempf identified her involuntary resignation or termination in May 2016 as the adverse action. The court declined to consider a separate retaliation claim based on her five-day suspension because the record did not show that she had exhausted that claim before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and did not show a relevant protected report concerning the suspension.

The County identified performance deficiencies and escalating misconduct as its reasons for the May 2016 employment action. Kempf did not dispute that the County had offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons. Instead, she argued that the reasons were pretextual, relying on the timing of her complaint and administrative leave, the evidence concerning access to the client’s office, different treatment of male employees with performance problems, her historically strong performance, and the County’s alleged failure to follow its complaint-investigation policy.

The court found that these arguments did not address the County’s stated reasons involving Kempf’s alleged aggressive behavior toward a client on April 11, 2016, and her conduct at the April 20, 2016 client meeting. The court found substantial evidence supporting those allegations and noted that Kempf had not presented contradictory evidence. It concluded that Kempf failed to create a genuine dispute about whether the County’s reasons were a pretext for retaliation. The court granted summary judgment for Hennepin County on Counts Three and Six.

Sex-Discrimination Claim: Count One

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Kempf could establish the basic elements of a sex-discrimination claim. It applied the same burden-shifting framework and held that Kempf relied on the same pretext arguments she made for her retaliation claims. For the reasons already discussed, the court concluded that the County’s belief that Kempf committed misconduct was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action and that Kempf had not shown that reason was a cover for sex discrimination.

Disposition

The court granted Hennepin County’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling covered all of Kempf’s remaining claims: Count One, Counts Three and Six. The court ordered judgment entered accordingly.