192708P.pdf   09/08/2021  Cathy Sellars  v.  CRST Expedited, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-2708
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiffs, female truck drivers 
   for CRST, alleged Title VII claims of retaliation and hostile work 
   environment on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as 
   well as individual constructive discharge claims on behalf of themselves. 
   CRST's policy of removing female drivers from trucks where they had 
   experienced harassment was not per se retaliation; with respect to the 
   pre-2015 members of the class, the removal policy led to a net decrease in 
   the women's pay, and the removal policy was materially adverse; however, 
   there was no direct evidence that CRST had any motivative discriminatory 
   bias; applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, the 
   plaintiffs failed to show the non-retaliatory reason for the policy was a 
   pretext for retaliation; with respect to the post-2105 members of the 
   class, they were also subject to adverse employment; the district court 
   should address in the first instance whether direct or circumstantial 
   evidence established that CRST took this adverse employment action in 
   retaliation for the post-2015 class members' Title VII-protected activity; 
   with respect to individual claims of hostile work environment, plaintiff 
   Fortune failed to create a genuine factual dispute as to whether CRST's 
   response to her complaints was actionably deficient, and CRST was entitled 
   to summary judgment; CRST's response to complaints of sexual harassment of 
   which it had actual notice was consistent with that which this court had 
   previously deemed adequate; plaintiffs did not establish the existence of 
   a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CRST knew or should have 
   known about ongoing coworker-on-coworker harassment and thereafter failed 
   to take prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to stop it; the 
   district court did not err in granting CRST summary judgment on 
   plaintiffs' individual constructive discharge claims; In sum: the court 
   affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' 
   individual retaliation claims, hostile work environment claims, and 
   constructive discharge claims; the grant of summary judgment to CRST on 
   the pre-2015 class's retaliation claims is also affirmed; the district 
   court's grant of summary judgment to CRST on the post-2015 class members' 
   class retaliation claims is reversed and that claim is remanded for 
   further proceedings.