Austin v. Minnesota Mining, 98-2670

• Decision Date: 30 July 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-2670,98-2670
• Citation: 193 F.3d 992
• Parties: (8th Cir. 1999) Mary D. Austin, Appellant, v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; Jerry Jones, Appellees. Submitted:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 992

193 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 1999)

Mary D. Austin, Appellant, v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; Jerry Jones, Appellees.

No. 98-2670

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Submitted: July 30, 1999

Filed: September 29, 1999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Mary D. Austin appeals from the final order entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in Austin's employment discrimination action. Austin claimed that defendants failed to promote her and harassed her on the basis of her race, sex, and age, and then demoted her in retaliation for filing this action--all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2000e-17. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Austin, an African-American woman over forty, worked for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M). She applied for a promotion to the position of quality helper after seeing a notice advertising the position; the notice indicated that tests would be given to all applicants. Failing any one of the three tests would disqualify an applicant from further consideration, and, of those applicants who passed the tests, the applicant with the most seniority would be awarded the job. Austin failed each test and was not promoted. In all, eight employees--four females and four males, of whom four were under forty and three were white--failed to qualify for the position based on their test scores. Of those who passed, a twenty-one-year- old white male and a twenty-seven-year-old white male received the same score, and the one with less seniority received the position.

Austin maintained that defendants discriminated against her by altering her test scores so as to disqualify her for the promotion. Austin further maintained that she was harassed because she was disciplined for violating safety procedures; her supervisors failed to provide her a portable toilet in the workplace, as promised, when she worked two-fifths of a mile, round trip, from the nearest restroom; a co-worker told her that her department was not for women; each quality-helper-applicant's test scores were indicated on a report, which was distributed at 3M's plant; and a derogatory flyer about Austin and a co-worker was posted. Finally, Austin asserted that she suffered retaliation because she was reassigned to a position with more physically strenuous work and less pay after she filed the instant action.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, and will affirm if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Ctr.-West Campus, 160 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1998). To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party need only submit "sufficient evidence supporting a material factual dispute that would require resolution by a trier of fact." Hase v. Missouri Div. of Employment Sec., 972 F.2d 893, 895 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 906 (1993).

We conclude summary judgment was proper as to Austin's hostile-work-environment claim. To succeed on such a claim, Austin had to establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) unwelcome harassment occurred; (3) a causal nexus existed between the harassment and her protected-group status; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) her employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. See Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir. 1999). Although Austin was understandably upset and embarrassed by the posting of the derogatory flyer, she failed to show that the posting affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment or to rebut defendants' proof that they promptly removed the flyer and investigated. The remaining...