Sellars v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. 19-2708 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, female truck drivers, filed suit against CRST alleging Title VII claims of retaliation and hostile work environment on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as well as individual constructive discharge claims on behalf of themselves. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CRST on the class and individual retaliation claims, as well as on the individual hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that CRST's removal policy does not constitute per se retaliation. With respect to the pre-2015 members of the class, the court concluded that the removal policy led to a net decrease in the women's pay; the removal policy was materially adverse; but there was no direct evidence that CRST had any motivative discriminatory bias. With respect to the post-2015 members of the class, the court concluded that these members were subject to adverse employment and the district court should address in the first instance the question whether direct or circumstantial evidence establishes that CRST took this adverse employment action in retaliation for the post-2015 class members' Title VII-protected activity.
In regard to plaintiffs' individual hostile work environment claims, the court concluded that Plaintiff Fortune has not created a genuine factual dispute whether CRST's response was actionably deficient; plaintiffs have not established the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact whether CRST knew or should have known about ongoing coworker-on-coworker harassment and thereafter failed to take prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end it; and plaintiffs have failed to show such discrimination on the part of CRST itself and therefore have failed to show that the employer created intolerable working conditions or took otherwise discriminatory action. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiffs, female truck drivers for CRST, alleged Title VII claims of retaliation and hostile work environment on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as well as individual constructive discharge claims on behalf of themselves. CRST's policy of removing female drivers from trucks where they had experienced harassment was not per se retaliation; with respect to the pre-2015 members of the class, the removal policy led to a net decrease in the women's pay, and the removal policy was materially adverse; however, there was no direct evidence that CRST had any motivative discriminatory bias; applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, the plaintiffs failed to show the non-retaliatory reason for the policy was a pretext for retaliation; with respect to the post-2105 members of the class, they were also subject to adverse employment; the district court should address in the first instance whether direct or circumstantial evidence established that CRST took this adverse employment action in retaliation for the post-2015 class members' Title VII-protected activity; with respect to individual claims of hostile work environment, plaintiff Fortune failed to create a genuine factual dispute as to whether CRST's response to her complaints was actionably deficient, and CRST was entitled to summary judgment; CRST's response to complaints of sexual harassment of which it had actual notice was consistent with that which this court had previously deemed adequate; plaintiffs did not establish the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CRST knew or should have known about ongoing coworker-on-coworker harassment and thereafter failed to take prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to stop it; the district court did not err in granting CRST summary judgment on plaintiffs' individual constructive discharge claims; In sum: the court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' individual retaliation claims, hostile work environment claims, and constructive discharge claims; the grant of summary judgment to CRST on the pre-2015 class's retaliation claims is also affirmed; the district court's grant of summary judgment to CRST on the post-2015 class members' class retaliation claims is reversed and that claim is remanded for further proceedings.
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.