Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

99-3789 Stutler v. Illinois Department of Corrections

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

99-3789 Stutler v. Illinois Department of Corrections

By: dmc-admin//September 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Stutler, we conclude that no reasonable jury could find that the conduct endured by Stutler was severe enough to rise to the level of an adverse employment action. Rockett’s conduct after Stutler reported her in May 1996 consisted of: 1) sending an e-mail … characterizing Stutler’s behavior as ‘bizarre’ and stating that ‘it would be best if [she and Stutler] did not work together,’ 2) telling Stutler repeatedly that ‘she had to go,’ 3) telling Stutler in September 1996 to collect her things so that she could move to an unfinished reception area outside Rockett’s office, 4) asking Stutler to return the key to her office in October 1996, and 5) telling Stutler in March 1998 (almost one year after Stutler asked to be returned to the clinical services department) that she could not forgive her for filing the lawsuit.

“Although we in no way condone Rockett’s conduct or believe that she acted appropriately as a supervisor, we find her behavior too petty and tepid to constitute a material change in the terms and conditions of Stutler’s employment. Rockett’s threats never materialized or resulted in any material harm to Stutler – is no evidence that Stutler was transferred in response to Rockett’s July e-mail nor that Stutler was moved to the unfinished area outside Rockett’s office. There is also no evidence that Stutler was unable to perform her job duties after Rockett asked her to return the key to Rockett’s office. Additionally, Stutler’s own conduct in requesting to return to the clinical services department because she ‘loved’ her job there cuts against a finding that Rockett’s behavior was anything more than ‘a mere inconvenience.’ Rabinovitz, 89 F.3d at 488. We have no doubt that the environment was unpleasant, but none of the conduct complained of constituted the material harm necessary for a Title VII retaliation claim.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Mihm, J., Williams, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests