Nichols v. Tri-National Logistics, Inc., No. 15-1153 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against TNI, alleging that TNI discriminated against her on the basis of race, terminated her in retaliation for her complaints, and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681. Plaintiff also filed suit against a fellow truck driver, James Paris, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and in analyzing plaintiff's sexual harassment claim by not considering all that had occurred during the 34 hour rest period in Pharr, Texas; the record contains genuine issues of material fact about all that happened on the trip and whether plaintiff subjectively perceived Paris' actions as offensive; and the district court erred in finding that plaintiff did not report Paris' conduct to TNI in a timely manner. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's sex discrimination claims under Title VII and Arkansas' civil rights statute because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether plaintiff subjectively felt abused by Paris, that TNI was aware of his conduct, and that TNI failed to take appropriate action. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for hostile work environment as there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the conduct of plaintiff's co-driver during an over-the-road trip and whether plaintiff subjectively perceived the co-driver's conduct as offensive; the court further erred in determining that plaintiff delayed in reporting the conduct; since the court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's sexual harassment claim, the court will also vacate the judgment on plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and, on remand, the district court should consider whether the co-driver's intentional infliction of emotional distress is so related to the alleged Title VII and Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy and should be reinstated; there was no evidence that the stated reason for plaintiff's discharge - a poor safety record - was a pretext for retaliation, and the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claims. Judge Smith, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.