Patricia Torre v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., No. 16-4143 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff's hostile work environment allegations did not raise to the level of an actionable claim; nor did plaintiff rebut the defendant's evidence that it acted pursuant to its legitimate, non-discriminatory business judgment in eliminating her position; defendant's summary judgment affirmed without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4143 ___________________________ Patricia A. Torre, an individual lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., a Delaware Corporation lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: September 7, 2017 Filed: September 12, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patricia Torre appeals the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment in favor of Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. on her claims of a hostile work 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. environment and retaliation. Following de novo review of the record, and construing the evidence most favorably to Torre, we agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Northrop Grumman Systems is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Henthorn v. Capitol Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir. 2004). Specifically, we agree that Torre’s allegations did not rise to the level of an actionable hostile work environment claim, see Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051, 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements of Title VII sexual harassment hostile work environment claim); Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home v. Agnew, 590 N.W.2d 688, 693 (Neb. 1999) (Nebraska employment discrimination law patterned after Title VII), and that she did not rebut evidence that Northrop Grumman acted pursuant to its legitimate, non-retaliatory business judgment in eliminating her position, see Hutton v. Maynard, 812 F.3d 679, 684–85 (8th Cir. 2016). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
