Paskert v. Burns, No. 18-3623 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Paskert, an Auto$mart sales associate, was supervised by Burns. Bjorkland was also a sales associate. Paskert alleges she was prevented from completing her training. Burns frequently lost his temper with everyone, he ridiculed and screamed at his employees, he referred to female customers using derogatory names, and threw objects. Bjorkland and Paskert heard Burns remark that he “never should have hired a woman” and wonder whether he could make Paskert cry. Burns openly bragged at work about his purported sexual conquests. Bjorkland witnessed Burns attempt to rub Paskert’s shoulders. Burns stated, “Oh, if you weren’t married ... I could have you.” Paskert and Bjorkland reported these incidents to the Director. After a few months on the job, Paskert was demoted. Three days later, she was discharged for insubordination, a poor sales record and use of profanity. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission issued a right-to-sue letter. Paskert’s federal complaint cited sex discrimination based on a hostile work environment and retaliation.
The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Burns’s alleged behavior, while reprehensible and improper, was not so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of Paskert’s employment. Paskert failed to exhaust her retaliation claim. Because hostile work environment claims are separate from sex discrimination claims, and because Paskert failed to make any separate arguments regarding sex discrimination in her briefs, the claim was not before the court.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Employment Discrimination. In complaint alleging sex discrimination based on a hostile work environment, and retaliation, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act because the behavior, while inappropriate, was not so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of Paskert's employment. Paskert failed to exhaust her administrative remedies relating to her retaliation claim by failing to draw a connection between her reporting of the behavior and the adverse employment action taken against her. The district court properly concluded Paskert did not allege a separate claim for sex discrimination.
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.