Anderson v. Oklahoma State University Board of Regents

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 17, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES W. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-6249
(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-01242-C)
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY (W.D. Okla.)
BOARD OF REGENTS,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and
TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Charles W. Anderson appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of his former employer, Oklahoma State University (OSU),
on his complaint that he was terminated from his employment in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 to 2000e-17.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
The district court ruled that Mr. Anderson did not establish a prima facie case of
prohibited retaliation or age discrimination because he did not present any
evidence that he opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII or that his
employer intended to discriminate against him because of his age. On appeal,
Mr. Anderson challenges only the denial of his retaliation claim. We affirm.
Background.
Mr. Anderson was employed by OSU as the Assistant Director of the
Center for Local Government Technology (CLGT). His supervisor was Michael
Hughes, the Director of CLGT. In 2003, Mr. Anderson told several OSU officials
that he believed Mr. Hughes was having an affair with a female employee,
Ms. Kiner; that Mr. Hughes was treating Ms. Kiner more favorably than others,
and that he and other employees, both male and female, found Ms. Kiner hard to
work with. OSU investigated and concluded that Mr. Hughes and Ms. Kiner were
not having an inappropriate relationship in the workplace. Mr. Anderson alleges
that after he reported the affair, he was not included in managerial meetings and
felt excluded from involvement in department matters.
Mr. Anderson was terminated in July 2006. OSU contends Mr. Anderson
was terminated as part of a reduction-in-force triggered by a loss of funding when
the state legislature transferred responsibilities for a county training program
from CLGT to another OSU department and college. Mr. Anderson contends that
-2-
the reduction-in-force was pretext for terminating him in retaliation for reporting
Mr. Hughes’s affair.
The district court ruled that Mr. Anderson’s actions in complaining
about Mr. Hughes’s affair with Ms. Kiner and the alleged favoritism he showed
her was not protected opposition to discrimination under Title VII. Because
Mr. Anderson did not present evidence that he engaged in any protected
opposition to discrimination, the district court ruled that Mr. Anderson failed to
demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII. Mr. Anderson
challenges that ruling on appeal.
Analysis.
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.”
Young v. Dillon Cos., 468 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment
is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file,
and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
“In conducting our analysis, we view all of the facts in the light most favorable to
the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the
non-moving party.” Young, 468 F.3d at 1249.
“Title VII contains an anti-retaliation provision that forbids an employer
from discriminating against an individual because that individual ‘has opposed
any practice made an unlawful employment practice’ by Title VII or because that
-3-
individual ‘has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in
an investigation, proceeding, or hearing’ pursuant to Title VII.” Pinkerton v.
Colo. Dep’t of Trans., 563 F.3d 1052, 1064 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-3(a)). At the summary judgment stage, “[t]o establish a prima facie case
of retaliation, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he engaged in protected
opposition to discrimination, (2) that a reasonable employee would have found the
challenged action materially adverse, and (3) that a causal connection existed
between the protected activity and the materially adverse action.” Id. (quotation
omitted). If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, it is the employer’s
burden to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action; then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the
employer’s asserted reason is pretextual. Id.
This circuit has ruled that “preferential treatment on the basis of a
consensual romantic relationship between a supervisor and an employee is not
gender-based discrimination.” Taken v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1366,
1370 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). We held that “Title VII’s reference
to ‘sex’ means a class delineated by gender, rather than sexual affiliations.”
Id. at 1369-70. Because the plaintiffs in Taken did not present any evidence that
they were denied employment benefits because they refused sexual advances,
were subjected to a hostile working environment, or otherwise were discriminated
against because of their gender, their allegations that their supervisor selected his
-4-
paramour/employee for promotion because of their romantic relationship did not
state an actionable Title VII claim because the favoritism was based on a
voluntary romantic affiliation and not gender differences. Id. at 1370. Based on
our holding in Taken, the district court ruled that Mr. Anderson’s complaints
about Mr. Hughes’s affair with and favoritism towards Ms. Kiner did not
constitute opposition to an employment practice made unlawful by Title VII.
On appeal, Mr. Anderson contends the district court erred in relying upon
Taken, arguing that decision is distinguishable on its facts. First, he contends that
he presented direct evidence that he was subjected to a hostile work environment
as a result of his reporting of the affair, citing his claims that he was shut out of
managerial meetings. This argument is simply a re-articulation of his retaliation
claim; Mr. Anderson never argued or presented evidence to the district court that
he was subjected to a hostile work environment, or was discriminated against, on
the basis of his gender or any other protected classification under Title VII.
Rather, evidence of his exclusion from department and managerial events and his
termination relate to the adverse employment actions he alleges were taken in
retaliation for his reporting of the affair. The plaintiffs in Taken also alleged
adverse employment actions, but the dispositive issue here, as in Taken, is that
the supervisor’s affair and related favoritism are not, without more, actionable
under Title VII.
-5-
Next, Mr. Anderson cites King v. Palmer, 778 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1985),
which he argues held that a female employee who was passed over for a
promotion in favor of another female employee who was having a sexual
relationship with the male individual responsible for the promotion selection did
state a Title VII claim. This court explicitly considered and rejected that
interpretation of King in Taken, 125 F.3d at 1370, and we are bound to follow our
circuit’s precedent absent en banc reconsideration or a superceding contrary
decision by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1278
n.4 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a majority of circuits hold, consistent with
Taken, that favoritism of an employee based upon a consensual romantic
relationship is not actionable under Title VII. Tenge v. Phillips Modern Ag Co.,
446 F.3d 903, 910 (8th Cir. 2006); Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539,
541 (7th Cir. 2005); Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 382 (5th Cir.
2003); Womack v. Runyon, 147 F.3d 1298, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam);
Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 149-50 (4th Cir. 1996); DeCintio v. Westchester
County Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304, 308 (2d Cir. 1986).
Thus, the district court correctly ruled that Mr. Anderson’s actions
in reporting Mr. Hughes’s affair and favoritism of Ms. Kiner did not constitute
opposition to an employment practice made unlawful by Title VII. Because
Mr. Anderson did not establish a prima facie case of prohibited retaliation
-6-
under Title VII, we need not address his arguments that he presented evidence
of pretext.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-7-