Heidi Nelson v. Lake Elmo Bank, No. 22-2827 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Lake Elmo Bank fired Plaintiff after receiving a report that she sexually harassed another employee. Plaintiff sued the Bank, claiming her termination was based on sex in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 363A.08, subd. 2(2) and (3). She also sued the Bank and the reporting employee for defamation. On both claims, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. First, the court explained that even assuming the complainant was not credible about some details, the Bank had sufficient information to reasonably believe that Plaintiff violated the harassment policy. The details at issue here are not significant enough to convince a jury that the Bank’s explanation was an attempt to cover up a discriminatory motive for Plaintiff’s termination.
Further, the court explained that here, unlike the employee in Bahr, the complainant’s complaint focused on only the conduct related to the harassment. There is also no evidence that the complainant, unlike the employee in Bahr, made any knowingly false statements or expressed an improper motive for making the complaint. In her interview, the complainant said that as a remedy, she sought to be moved off the teller line, away from Plaintiff, or switched to a different location. There is no evidence to show that the complainant made her statements causelessly and wantonly to injure Plaintiff’s employment.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. The employer provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory ground for plaintiff's discharge - violation of the company's harassment policy - and plaintiff failed to show the stated ground was a pretext for gender discrimination; the district court did not err in granting defendant Alvarado's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's defamation claims, as the statements were not motivated solely by malice, spite or ill will and were protected by a qualified privilege under Minnesota law.
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.