She including complains you to during an away-of-urban area review, Waggoner shared with her to find an experience to their particular lodge off a lender worker as the he would getting away inspecting assets

Penry along with alludes to facts showing you to definitely Waggoner starred pranks on her. You to definitely prank he played six so you can 10 times, mainly if you’re she was expecting. Predicated on Penry, Waggoner would sneak-up at the rear of their own, place their on the job their own shoulders and you may loudly say their particular name to frighten their own. One other several pranks was indeed single occurrences. One out of Summer 1990 in which Waggoner knocked on the resort home right after which hid, as well as the most other where he removed his hand on steering https://www.paydayloancolorado.net/hayden controls while you are operating an auto in which Penry given that a passenger. Within her response, Penry claims you to definitely she does not define this type of acts as “sexual serves by itself,” however, argues they still form sexual harassment since “they instruct Waggoner’s male prominence more female professionals inside the attentive situations.” The newest legal disagrees. Penry gift ideas zero research, except that conjecture, these facts was determined because of the sexual animus otherwise gender bias. In her deposition, Penry says she didn’t understand what passionate such as for instance run by the Waggoner. Penry and doesn’t give legal service for their “men popularity” principle, additionally the courtroom isnt convinced to help you construe what generally seems to be gender-natural buffoonery since a demonstration of “men prominence” more “captive” feminine group. The reality that Penry may have been “isolated and you can by yourself” within her works cubicle otherwise “captive” for the Waggoner’s automobile cannot transfer gender-basic pranks to your make driven by the sexual animus otherwise gender prejudice.

Penry along with opposes defendants’ conclusion wisdom actions having proof Waggoner’s carry out throughout the out-of-area works projects. Penry also offers no evidence these symptoms lead away from gender bias or animus. On the other hand, they look to-be gender basic, just like the do Waggoner’s comments, throughout the a business travels, about their marital problems. ” The brand new court discovers no merit to that particular argument. In addition, Penry’s say that the latest assignment to search with Waggoner comprises sexual harassment is additionally unavailing. Instead of evidence to the contrary, government decisions, regardless of if injudicious, may possibly not be defined since the on account of gender. Look for Ballou v. *839 University out of Kansas Medical Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains you to when you look at the March 1990, Waggoner did not let their own elevator big boxes while in the an in-webpages review of a lender hence she needed to eat eating with Waggoner during away-of-urban area inspections

Penry second opposes defendants’ summary judgment actions by offering evidence of Waggoner’s unpleasant comments and outbursts. Penry complains you to definitely Waggoner usually yelled at the Betsworth to possess their particular mistakes, he demeaned Betsworth at the rear of her back, and you will said that every woman on safekeeping company was in fact “dumb” and that his wife are “ignorant.” Penry and additionally complains about Waggoner’s use of the name “gals” to refer into women in their agency. Betsworth testified you to Waggoner yelled at the their and she yelled at the him, however, she never thought he had been abusive so you’re able to their. While particularly antics can get subscribe an unpleasant if you don’t “hostile” ecosystem, there is no proof that the aggression produced from specific gender-depending animosity or prejudice. The brand new Tenth Circuit provides held one to ailment away from a keen employee’s really works, as opposed to some type of gender-particular resource, isnt gender-situated conduct. Gross, 53 F.3d during the 1545-46. At exactly the same time, “dumb” was a good gender neutral label whilst can put on similarly so you’re able to each other sexes. Id. in the 1543; Young v. Finish line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 in the * 5 (D.Kan.). This need including relates to Waggoner’s use of the title “ignorant.” Significantly, Penry produced in her deposition one Waggoner’s utilization of the label “dumb” to refer to your ladies in the latest safekeeping institution wasn’t due to sexual animus, however, is actually a typical example of his standard interest of excusing their own problems by moving forward blame to many other parties. In the long run, Penry gift suggestions no proof one to Waggoner’s use of the name “gals” stemmed regarding sexual animus. According to Waggoner, he utilized the label regarding habit, not-out regarding sexual animus. Also, it would appear that it was not the expression alone one upset Penry, however, it absolutely was utilized by Waggoner. Penry reported that she wasn’t offended when their unique past women management described Penry or any other collateral department teams because the “their girls.”