Smith V. Case Brief

Student Name ____________
Case Analysis ____________
Word Count:

I. Caption. Smith v. Hy-Vee, 622 F.3d 904 [8th Cir. 2010]
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.

III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual

Essential Facts. Dru Smith, the appellant, was employed in the bakery department of Hy-Vee, Inc., the appellee. While employed at the bakery, Smith claims to have been sexually harassed by another employee, Sherry Lynch. Smith reported inappropriate touching along with vulgar, sexually charged comments. Lynch engaged in similar kind of conduct toward other women working at the store as well, from which Smith concluded that Lynch was either bisexual or a lesbian. Lynch engaged in the same kind of sexually charged behavior towards the men as well. Other employees were also reported having engaged in similar conduct. Smith claims to have reported the inappropriate behavior to at least twelve managers or coworkers with a total of 66-101 complaints. The management did not take any action on these complaints. The employer denied Smith ever made these

During Smith’s employment at Hy-Vee, the store managers and supervisors documented several events where Smith acted inappropriately or challenged her supervisors’ authority. Some of these incidents occurred a few weeks before Smith’s termination. Smith was not allowed to respond to the most recent write-ups although Hy-Vee had such a policy in place.
Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination against Hy-Vee with the EEOC and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Smith filed claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, after which the case was removed to federal court by Hy-Vee. After the court granted both the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment case, and the in limine motion to exclude evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim, the retaliation case went to trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hy-Vee. Smith