Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—8th Cir.: Tough assignments, delayed performance review, were not adverse employment actions post-Muldrow, (Jul 23, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The alleged assignment of higher-level work by a supervisor who took credit for it, as well as the delayed review that resulted in a raise, did not cause “some harm” to “an identifiable term or condition of employment.”

A Hispanic Puerto Rican employee at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who claimed her supervisors discriminated against her because of her sex, race, and national origin, and then retaliated against her after she filed EEO complaints, failed to convince the Eighth Circuit to reverse the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII claims on summary judgment. Most of her supervisors’ alleged conduct did not meet the “some harm” requirement of an adverse employment action, even post-Muldrow, nor did it create a sufficiently severe or pervasive hostile work environment. Moreover, there was also no evidence suggesting her lack of a reassignment was pretext for discrimination or causally related to her protected EEO activity (Martinez-Medina v. Rollins, No. 24-2282 (8th Cir. July 22, 2025)).

In 2016, the employee began working for the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a GS-05 level employee. By 2018, she had been promoted to the GS-09 level.

Settlement of EEO claims. The employee claimed that her second-line supervisor routinely assigned her work above her pay grade and took credit for her work. Between 2017 and 2018, she filed two formal EEO complaints alleging discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. On August 15, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which she agreed to waive any claims against the agency relating to her employment up to that date.

Delayed evaluation. Afterwards, a supervisor who was required to complete her 2018 performance evaluation by October 30 delayed the review until early December due to being on FMLA leave. Because the supervisor gave her the highest rating possible, she received a two percent increase in pay.

Offended by remark. On December 12, 2018, a coworker asked the employee’s acting supervisor if the employee could assist with some work, and he responded, “[w]ell I guess she could bring you coffee” and started laughing. The employee threatened to report the incident, and he immediately went and self-reported it to her second-line supervisor. During their meeting, she allegedly heard the second-line supervisor refer to her as an “incompetent woman.” The acting supervisor ultimately took responsibility for his statement, and there were no further issues between him and the employee.

EEO complaint, reassignment request. Less than a week later, the employee filed an informal EEO complaint. During an interview with the investigator on February 19, 2019, she requested to be assigned to a different work group. The investigator alerted her second-line and third-line supervisors, and both indicated they would do all that they could to help. The third-line supervisor also stated that he would grant her reassignment request once she directly submitted the request to him. She never did so, and on March 8, she withdrew her informal EEO complaint. On March 26, she informed her acting supervisor that another department had offered her a potential opportunity, but she later declined it.

Lawsuit. On March 27, she filed a formal EEO complaint. After the agency denied relief, she filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin; a hostile work environment; and retaliation due to her EEO activity. The district court dismissed all her claims on summary judgment, and she appealed.

Lack of reassignment not pretextual. As to her disparate treatment claims, the Eighth Circuit declined to decide whether her lack of a reassignment qualified as an adverse employment action since there was no evidence suggesting pretext. The agency stated that her reassignment request was not granted because she failed to follow through on her request and later withdrew it, and pointed out that her supervisors attempted to help her find another suitable position. Her mere response that her reassignment request “came to naught” did not suggest pretext.

Other actions didn’t cause “some harm.” The other actions she claimed were discriminatory did not meet the Muldrow standard requiring “some harm” to “an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Though she claimed she was required to perform work previously completed by higher level staff, the record did not suggest the work was outside the scope of her job responsibilities. Insofar as she claimed her second-line supervisor took credit for her work product, there was no evidence this caused her a lost opportunity for promotion. And while she complained about the delay of her 2018 performance review, she received the highest rating, which resulted in a pay increase.

Harassment not severe. The district court also did not err in dismissing her hostile work environment claim. First, the Eighth Circuit rejected her contention that she could rely on pre-settlement conduct as continuing evidence of harassment since the settlement agreement expressly discontinued liability for conduct predating August 15, 2018. Moreover, none of the alleged conduct that occurred after that date rose to the level of an actionable hostile work environment. Title VII “does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment and it is not a general civility code for the American workplace,” and the Eighth Circuit has “consistently required much more severe conduct than that alleged here.”

Retaliation claims fail. Finally, her retaliation claim failed since neither the temporal nexus nor any other evidence suggested that the alleged acts were causally linked to her EEO activity. Because she claimed her second-line supervisor assigned her higher-level work and took credit for it “from the time she started” working, those acts began well before her EEO activity. Moreover, her delayed review and lack of reassignment occurred at least several months later.

The case is No. 24-2282.

Judge: Gruender, R.

Attorneys: Rebecca M. Randles (Randles Mata) for Ada Martinez-Medina. Jeffrey P. Ray, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Brooke L. Rollins.

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