Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—8th Cir.: Former USDA employee who abruptly retired cannot revive claims, (Mar 3, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

She had previously reached a settlement agreement with the agency in 2015 and the court confined its review to events occurring after the settlement date.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Title VII race and gender discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment claims alleged by a former employee of the USDA, the Eighth Circuit determined that she had failed to demonstrate the required causal nexus between the complained of discrimination and harassment and her protected status. She further failed to show that she had suffered any adverse employment actions following her filing of a 2013 complaint. In addition, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of the employee’s claims to conduct that occurred after she had reached a settlement agreement with the agency in 2015 (Parker v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 23-3404 (8th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025)).

The individual who brought this action is a Black woman who was hired as a program management assistant by the USDA in 2011. In her role, she maintained a clerical position and was responsible for providing administrative assistance.

EEOC complaint, settlement. Prior to the circumstances leading to this action, the employee had filed an EEOC complaint in 2013 and reached a settlement agreement with the USDA. According to the terms of the agreement, she agreed to waive any complaints that could have been filed against the USDA through the effective date of the settlement, May 29, 2015.

Menial tasks. During her employment, the employee was the only person in her department who was asked to clean out cabinets used by other employees. She also complained that her duties began to diminish after her department changed its timekeeping system. She began to ask her supervisor for daily work assignments and special projects and accepted a 60-day detail with the Farm Service Agency in 2017.

Transfer, promotion opportunities. In addition, the employee inquired about transferring to another division. She was told she would have to compete for any position through a vacancy announcement as the only positions available at the time were above her current pay grade. There was no evidence she ever applied for a transfer. She also applied for three promotions during her tenure and alleged that the positions all went to less-qualified white women.

Counseling letters, investigation. While the employee was seeking additional work opportunities, she received two letters of counseling based on her own disruptive conduct. The first, issued in 2016, stated that it was not a disciplinary action. Indeed, the employee never received any discipline related to the letter. The second letter, issued in 2018, concerned an incident where the employee allegedly told a coworker she was going to “kick her ass” and that she had only obtained her position because she was white.

This second letter prompted the USDA to begin an investigation into the employee’s conduct on August 30, 2018. The investigation was suspended on September 10, 2018, because the employee abruptly notified management that she was retiring.

Additional EEOC complaints. Additional EEOC complaints were filed by the employee in 2017 and 2018. In the 2017 complaint, she alleged that she was discriminated against based on her race, gender, age, and color because the USDA: (1) gave her menial work assignments or no work assignments at all; (2) failed to promote or otherwise give her development opportunities; and (3) issued a letter of counseling in 2016. She also alleged retaliation based on her original EEOC complaint that was settled in 2015.

While the 2017 complaint was in mediation, the employee alleged that her supervisor refused to speak with her in person over a two-week period, communicating strictly through email.

A second EEOC complaint was filed in 2018 wherein the employee brought additional race, gender, age, color, and disability discrimination claims along with a retaliation claim based on (1) her supervisor refusing to speak with her in person; (2) the 2018 letter of counseling; and (3) the investigation into her workplace conduct.

Lawsuit. After exhausting her administrative remedies, the employee filed suit alleging disparate treatment and a hostile work environment on the basis of race and gender, a retaliation claim based on the filing of her 2013 EEOC complaint, and a claim for constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the USDA on all counts.

Before ruling on the merits, the district court noted that it would not be considering allegations concerning actions from the settled 2013 EEOC complaint. The court went on to find that the employee had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation under McDonnell Douglas. Her hostile work environment claims also failed because she did not demonstrate a causal link between the USDA’s conduct and her race or gender. In addition, her constructive discharge claim failed because she did not prove her workplace was intolerable or that the USDA intended for her to quit. This appeal followed.

Settlement agreement. As a threshold matter, the employee challenged the district court’s decision to confine its review to events occurring after May 29, 2015, the effective date of the settlement agreement. According to the employee, the pre-settlement conduct demonstrates a “continuing violation” of discrimination by the USDA. The court was not moved.

Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the employee “waived all claims that arose prior to the execution” of the agreement. Here, the employee essentially asked the district court to override the settlement agreement and substantively consider claims that she had relinquished. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so, said the appellate court.

Disparate treatment. Turning to the employee’s claims for disparate treatment, she alleged that the following discrete acts constituted an adverse employment action on the basis of her race or gender: (1) the 2016 letter of counseling; (2) the failure to train, transfer, or allow her to shadow in a position that would lead to a promotion; (3) the promotion of lesser qualified individuals than her; (4) the 2018 letter of counseling; (5) her supervisor refusing to speak with her; and (6) a lack of work.

It was undisputed that the employee is a member of a protected group. In addition, the USDA conceded that she was meeting its legitimate expectations. However, the court found she had failed to demonstrate how any of the alleged adverse employment actions permitted an inference of discrimination.

For example, the court pointed to the employee’s requests to transfer to another position. Here, she provided no proof that she ever applied for a transfer or was ever denied a transfer based on her gender or race. Likewise, her failure-to-promote claims failed because she provided no admissible evidence about who was promoted over her.

All of the other allegations suffered from the same deficiencies: a lack of nexus between the employee’s race or gender and the complained of conduct, said the court. As such, her disparate treatment claims failed as a matter of law and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against these claims.

Hostile work environment. Next, the court considered the employee’s hostile work environment claims. Here, the court determined that these claims similarly failed because the employee could not establish the causal nexus between the alleged harassment and her protected status, and instead relied only on speculation and conjecture.

In addition, she failed to show that her working conditions were so severe or pervasive as to create a hostile work environment. Although she claimed to have “personality conflicts” with her coworkers and superiors, this was insufficient to satisfy her burden as Title VII does not impose a code of workplace civility, explained the court.

Further, it was undisputed that the employee’s pay grade and salary remained unchanged during the time at issue, and thus she could not demonstrate that the alleged harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the USDA against these claims.

Constructive discharge. Regarding the employee’s claim for constructive discharge, the court noted that this claim was premised on the same allegations that were insufficient to meet the lower bar of a hostile work environment. As such, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against this claim.

Retaliation. Finally, the court considered the employee’s claim for retaliation. It was undisputed that she engaged in protected conduct by filing her complaint with the EEOC in 2013. However, the employee failed to provide any evidence of a causal nexus between her protected conduct and any alleged adverse action.

The temporal nexus between the filing of the complaint and the complained of conduct was not sufficiently contemporaneous to raise an inference of causal connection, said the court. The employee never conceded that she had ever received any remedial training, reduction in pay, or disciplinary action during her tenure. Further, the two letters of counseling were issued as a direct response to the employee’s admitted, disruptive conduct. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 23-3404.

Judge: Shepherd, B.

Attorneys: Rebecca M. Randles (Randles Mata) for Deidre Parker. Jeffrey P. Ray, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Brooke L. Rollins.

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews