Blomker v. Jewell, No. 15-1787 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the Department, alleging a sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment and a retaliation claim. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b). In support of her sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment, plaintiff alleges seven incidents of harassment by two different men over a nearly three-year period. The court found as a matter of law that plaintiff's complaint failed to show harassment so severe or pervasive that they satisfy the high threshold for a sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment. The court also found that plaintiff's purported "direct evidence" of retaliation fails as a matter of law for lack of causation where she failed to plausibly allege that the retaliation was a but-for cause of the Department's adverse action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - sexual harassment and retaliation. Because Blomker's complaint fails to show harassment was so severe or pervasive to meet the high threshold for a sexual harassment claim based on hostile work environment, dismissal was appropriate for failure to state a claim as a matter of law. The retaliation claim failed for lack of causation. The district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is affirmed. Judge Beam dissents.
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.