Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—8th Cir.: Summary judgment affirmed for construction company in lead installer’s Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation suit, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

The former lead installer's sex discrimination and retaliation claims rested on conclusory allegations rather than record evidence.

A construction employee had complained that her supervisor demeaned her and after an internal investigation, in which the employee never brought up sex discrimination, the employee was offered a transfer to a different jobsite at the same pay rate. The employee declined the transfer, resigned, and sued for sex discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the internal communications did not mention that the employee had complained of sex discrimination and there were no documents or record supporting the employee’s claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the construction company on the former employee's Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act claims, holding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination and, even assuming a prima facie case of retaliation, she could not show that the employer’s stated reasons for reassigning her were pretextual (Joseph v. Thomas-Grace Construction Inc., No. 25-2568 (8th Cir. July 24, 2026)).

First day, first complaint. The employee was hired by TGC, a Minnesota-based construction and installation company, as a lead installer in November 2022. She began work at a Las Vegas jobsite in January 2023. On her first day, the employee complained to a TGC superintendent that her supervisor was preventing her from doing her job. When the superintendent explained that her assignment with the supervisor was temporary and that she would move to night shifts once that shift began, the employee initially thanked him, then a day later threatened to resign, citing feelings of disrespect. After the superintendent clarified that the shift change was part of her training rather than retaliatory, the employee withdrew her resignation.

Subsequent incidents followed. TGC learned the employee had been reported for yelling at hotel staff during a work trip, though she was not disciplined. She later complained again about her supervisor’s "old fashioned ideals," but weeks afterward emailed the superintendent apologizing and stating she had come to see her supervisor as "a kind man" and that she had been "wrong" in her earlier characterization of him.

Transfer. The employee then transferred to a Sparks, Nevada jobsite, where she was involved in a forklift collision with a vehicle, again without discipline. When another supervisor was assigned to the employee, friction arose immediately; the employee accused him of being demeaning, and the supervisor acknowledged calling himself "a prick at times" but denied any other issue.

Investigation. TGC's Director of Operations initially suggested termination in an internal email calling the employee's complaints "BS," but reversed course and opened a formal investigation instead. During that investigation, the employee complained that men were treated as more valuable at the company, but neither her interview nor her contemporaneous emails referenced sex discrimination. The corroborating witness she identified did not substantiate her allegations against either supervisor.

Resignation. TGC's investigation found no evidence supporting her claims and offered her a lateral transfer to Connecticut, which she declined, resigning instead. She sued TGC for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Act; the district court granted summary judgment to TGC on all claims. The employee subsequently appealed.

Discrimination claims. The court of appeals noted that Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Act claims are analyzed identically to Title VII claims. On the discrimination claims, the court found the employee offered no direct evidence of discriminatory animus, relying instead on her own uncorroborated deposition testimony, which the court deemed insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

The court further held she failed to establish a prima facie case because she identified no facts giving rise to an inference of sex discrimination: her own witness did not corroborate mistreatment, her contemporaneous complaints never mentioned sex, and she herself did not raise sex discrimination during TGC's internal investigation. The court also rejected her disparate-treatment theory, finding she failed to show that male comparators like her supervisors were similarly situated or engaged in comparable conduct.

Retaliation claims. The panel bypassed the question of whether the employee engaged in protected activity, instead resolving the claim on pretext grounds. The court reasoned that TGC had multiple legitimate, nondiscriminatory justifications for transferring the employee, including recurring conflicts with supervisors, the forklift incident, and the hotel altercation, as well as the practical reality that installers were regularly relocated and Connecticut was the only open position.

The court found the Director of Operations "BS" email insufficient to establish pretext, noting the director reversed course, launched a genuine investigation, and gave the employee an opportunity to present evidence. The court also observed that the email predated any complaint referencing sex, and that the employee's later complaint about gender favoritism came after the director’s email and produced no adverse response.

The Eighth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to TGC on both the sex discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that the employee's evidence amounted to conclusory allegations insufficient to withstand summary judgment under governing Eighth Circuit precedent.

The case is No. 25-2568.

Judge: Shepard, B.

Attorneys: Alicia L. Anderson (Law Office of Alicia L. Anderson) for Becky Joseph. Lisa Lamm Bachman (Foley & Mansfield) for Thomas-Grace Construction Inc.

Companies: Thomas-Grace Construction Inc.

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