Rhonda Harris v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 14-1268 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. The Social Security Administration's action in placing plaintiff on a performance improvement plan was not an adverse action within the meaning of Title VII so as to support plaintiff's claim of racial discrimination; in any event, the SSA provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, which plaintiff failed to show was a pretext for race discrimination; no error in rejecting plaintiff's retaliation and hostile-work-environment claims.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1268 ___________________________ Rhonda Harris lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: September 19, 2014 Filed: October 6, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rhonda Harris appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to the defendant in Harris s Title VII action against her former employer, 1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. the Social Security Administration (SSA). After careful review, we conclude that Harris s placement on a Performance Assistance Plan in August 2009 was not an adverse employment action within the meaning of Title VII so as to support her claim of racial discrimination. See Clegg v. Ark. Dep t of Corr., 496 F.3d 922, 926 (8th Cir. 2007) ( An adverse employment action is a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage. (citations to quoted cases omitted)). In any case, SSA presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, and Harris did not present sufficient evidence of pretext. See Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 854 (8th Cir.) (explaining that pretext must be demonstrated with evidence that raises a genuine doubt about the legitimacy of an employer s motive), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 313 (2012). Regarding Harris s retaliation claim, we conclude that she failed to present sufficient evidence that she engaged in protected conduct. See Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., 674 F.3d 962, 978 (8th Cir. 2012) (stating that a plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that she engaged in protected conduct in order to prove a prima facie case of retaliation). Finally, to the extent Harris asserted a hostile-work-environment claim, we conclude that she failed to present any evidence that the alleged harassment was racially motivated. See Malone v. Ameren UE, 646 F.3d 512, 517 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that an employee must demonstrate, inter alia, unwelcome race-based harassment in order to prove a hostile-work-environment claim). We affirm, and we deny SSA s pending motion. ______________________________ -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.
