Johnson v. General Bd. of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging that defendant denied plaintiff series of requested promotions, subjected her to sexual harassment based upon co-worker’s showing of video on office computer, and then ultimately terminated her on account of her race. Record showed that plaintiff failed to make timely application for two requested promotions and was properly rejected for two other requested promotions, because decision-makers honestly believed that successful candidates displayed more leadership and interpersonal skills. Moreover, plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of comparable co-worker, who received more favorable treatment, to support her claim that her termination for secretly recording phone conversations of her co-workers over several month period was based on her race. Also, single brief display of male nudity on office computer was insufficient to establish viable sexual harassment claim. With respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim that went to jury trial, which resulted in verdict in defendant’s favor, Dist. Ct. did not commit reversible error for violating Rules 51(b)(1) and (2) by failing to give parties opportunity to review final draft of jury instructions, where disputed instruction that told jury that applicable decision-maker was required to have notice of protected conduct constituted accurate statement of law.