Nielsen v. Seven Seventeen Credit Union, Inc. et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio grants defendants’ motions for summary judgment in Mandy Nielsen’s employment-discrimination and sexual-harassment action against Seven Seventeen Credit Union and Angelo Locastro. The court concludes that the federal and Ohio sex-discrimination claims lack evidence of an adverse employment action because of sex, that the quid pro quo harassment claim was inadequately pleaded and unsupported, and that the hostile-work-environment claim was abandoned. The court also considers the effect of discovery sanctions excluding certain evidence.

Holdings

1. Nielsen failed to show that her termination or any other tangible employment action was caused by her sex or by Locastro's alleged harassment, and she identified no similarly situated nonprotected employee treated more favorably. Summary judgment was therefore proper on the federal sex-discrimination claim.
2. Nielsen did not sufficiently plead a quid pro quo harassment claim and could not raise the claim for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. In any event, the record did not establish a genuine factual dispute that the alleged conduct was unwelcome or conditioned employment benefits on submission to sexual demands.
3. Nielsen abandoned her hostile-work-environment claim by failing to address it in response to the summary-judgment motion. The claim therefore failed without a merits analysis; alternatively, the court stated that the claim failed because the alleged conduct was not shown to be unwelcome.
4. The Ohio sex-discrimination claim failed for the same reasons as the Title VII sex-discrimination claim because Ohio's sex-discrimination jurisprudence is analyzed analogously to Title VII.
5. Locastro was entitled to summary judgment because the remaining federal and state sex-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims were asserted against the credit union, not against him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nielsen presented a genuine dispute of material fact supporting a Title VII sex-discrimination claim based on a materially adverse employment action because of sex.
2. Whether Nielsen sufficiently pleaded and supported a quid pro quo sexual-harassment claim.
3. Whether Nielsen abandoned her adequately pleaded hostile-work-environment claim by failing to address it in opposition to summary judgment.
4. Whether Nielsen's Ohio sex-discrimination claim failed for the same reasons as her Title VII claim.
5. Whether Locastro was entitled to judgment because the remaining claims were asserted against the credit union rather than against him.

Disposition

other