May Yang v. Robert Half Int., Inc., No. 22-2592 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Robert Half International, Inc. (“RHI”) provides legal staffing solutions for its clients. Plaintiff worked for RHI as a contract attorney performing document review. Plaintiff was employed on various projects on an as-needed basis. Defendants Marcia Miller and Theresa Hodnett were Plaintiff’s coworkers and had no supervisory duties related to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Miller, Hodnett, and other coworkers engaged in a pattern of discrimination and harassment toward her. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of her claims against Marcia Miller and Theresa Hodnett.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The court explained the relevant conduct at issue here is RHI’s continuous employment of Miller following the doorway incident. The court explained that no reasonable jury could find this conduct rises to the requisite level necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff asserts that Miller committed a battery against her during the doorway incident. In Minnesota, the battery is an intentional and offensive contact with another person.
Further, the court wrote that it reviewed the video footage of the alleged trip and find there is sufficient evidence in the video to create a factual dispute as to whether Miller intended to lift her leg, make contact with Plaintiff, and cause Plaintiff to trip. Because of the factual dispute, summary judgment on this claim is improper the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s battery claim and remand.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion tolled her time to appeal, and her notice of appeal was timely; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motions to amend the scheduling order, to supplement the record, and to add a claim for punitive damages; plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, and her Section 1981 claim failed as a matter of law; plaintiff's state law defamation claims failed as she did not establish that any comments or statements made by defendants injured her reputation; plaintiff has abandoned on appeal her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; with respect to her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff was unable to state a claim for defamation, malicious prosecution, or other willful, wanton, or malicious conduct sufficient to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; the district court did not err in granting defendant RHI's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of race discrimination and retaliation; plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of hostile work environment and could not show she was constructively discharged; plaintiff's Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim failed because she suffered no adverse employment action; there was an issue of material fact as to whether defendant Miller had committed a battery against plaintiff, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Miller on this claim; because plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case of discrimination against any defendant, her aiding and abetting discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act failed as matter of law; cost judgment against plaintiff affirmed; remanded to permit the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's batter claim against Miller; in light of this remand, the cost judgment in favor of Miller is also vacated.
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.