Dr. Penny M. Wilkie v. Dept. of HHS, No. 10-1916 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Appellant filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("Department") alleging, inter alia, that the Department violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000, when the administrative officer and acting chief executive officer ("CEO") of the medical clinic operated by the Department began making sexually suggestive comments to her, called her at home while intoxicated, and appeared unannounced at her home on different occasions including one instance where she came home to find him sleeping naked in her bed. At issue was whether the district court erred in its findings. The court affirmed and held that appellant's claims for misconduct that occurred before June 18, 2005 were barred where she failed to report the incidents within 45 days of their occurrence, instead of a year later, and denied her claims for equitable tolling. The court also held that the CEO's alleged rumor-spreading was not harassment so severe or pervasive that it met the high threshold for a hostile work environment and that this single act of discriminatory conduct was insufficient to establish a hostile work environment or constructive discharge claim. The court further held that appellant failed to prove that she suffered an adverse employment action and was treated differently than similarly situated males where neither party disputed that the Department never terminated her, cut her pay or benefits, or changed her job duties or responsibilities. Therefore, appellant's retaliation claim necessarily failed where she did not demonstrate that the Department took a materially adverse action against her.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. Claims occurring in 2004 were time-barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and plaintiff failed to show the claims were equitably tolled by either her mental incapacity or a continuing-violation argument; assuming plaintiff established the first three elements of a prima facie case on her claims of hostile work environment/sexual harassment, she failed to establish the fourth element of such claims since the harassment did not affect a term, condition or privilege of employment; constructive discharge argument rejected; plaintiff failed to show a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation since there was no material adverse action against her.
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.