Schroeder v. Axel H. Ohman, Inc.

Background

Renee Schroeder worked as a laborer for Axel H. Ohman, Inc. from November 2014 through December 2018. She alleged that coworker John Hayes made repeated sexually explicit comments, engaged in physically intimidating conduct, and called her insulting names. She also alleged that foreman Brian Maas discriminated against and harassed her because she was a woman by berating her, failing to provide direction, refusing to record her work time, and expressing the view that women should not work in the industry.

Schroeder reported Hayes’s alleged conduct to Axel’s president, Pete Peschel, and field supervisor, Lance Perron, in June 2017. Peschel spoke with Hayes, warned him that he could be fired for violating the company’s sexual-harassment policy, and told Perron to keep Hayes separated from Schroeder and her boyfriend, Jamie Friebel. Schroeder alleged that Axel nevertheless assigned her to work with Hayes on later occasions and that she experienced additional mistreatment after reporting the harassment.

Schroeder also reported the alleged harassment to her union and filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. She alleged that Axel retaliated by mistreating her, assigning her to work alone with Hayes, sending her home when she complained, and failing to call her back to work. Axel disputed her account and offered other explanations, including seasonal layoffs, differences in employee skill, and information it received accusing Schroeder of workplace drug use and fabricating her harassment claims. The opinion states that the person who provided those accusations later admitted making them up.

Claims and standard

Schroeder brought sexual-harassment and reprisal claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as sexual-harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Axel moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. At this stage, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Sexual-harassment claims

The court explained that a hostile-work-environment claim requires evidence that the plaintiff belongs to a protected group, experienced unwelcome sexual harassment based on sex, was subjected to harassment affecting a term or condition of employment, and that the employer knew or should have known about it but failed to take proper corrective action. Under both Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the court considers whether a reasonable person could view the conduct as abusive or offensive and whether the plaintiff actually experienced it that way.

The court found factual disputes on each issue Axel challenged. Schroeder repeatedly testified that the alleged harassment was unwelcome, and her reports to Peschel and the union supported that account. The record also contained evidence connecting Maas’s alleged conduct to Schroeder’s sex. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find the alleged statements, physical conduct, and repeated incidents objectively abusive or offensive, even though the incidents occurred on several days over multiple years. The court also found factual disputes about whether Axel properly investigated the reports and took sufficient corrective action, particularly because Schroeder was later assigned to work with Hayes.

Retaliation claims

For retaliation, Schroeder had to show that she engaged in protected conduct, experienced an action that could materially discourage a reasonable employee from complaining, and that the protected conduct caused the adverse action. Because she did not present direct evidence of retaliation, the court applied the burden-shifting framework commonly used when an employer gives a non-retaliatory reason for its actions. Axel offered several legitimate explanations, but the court found that Schroeder presented evidence from which a jury could find those explanations were a pretext, or cover, for retaliation.

In particular, the court cited evidence that Axel did not investigate the accusations made against Schroeder by Christopher Schmidt, that she was not called back to work after December 2018, and that the timing could support an inference of retaliatory motive. The court also found factual disputes about whether Axel’s continued assignments of Schroeder with Hayes and its failure to prevent alleged coworker abuse contributed to a hostile work environment in retaliation for her complaint.

Disposition

The court held that the factual disputes prevented resolution on summary judgment and denied Axel H. Ohman, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not state that the claims were dismissed or otherwise finally resolved.