Holland v. Sam’s Club

Full title: KATHARINA HOLLAND, Plaintiff. v. SAM’S CLUB, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

Case No. 04-0849-CV-W-GAF.

Date published: Dec 21, 2005


Presently before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Sam’s Club. (Doc. #75). The Plaintiff, Katharina Holland (“Holland”), opposes this Motion asserting that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. (Doc. #111). Upon careful consideration of the facts and arguments presented by the parties, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.



Holland’s Title VII claim for hostile work environment is not actionable because Holland failed to establish that any actionable conduct occurred within the 300-day statutory period. Similarly, Holland’s MHRA claims for hostile work environment, gender discrimination and retaliation are not actionable because Holland failed to present any evidence of actionable conduct occurring within the 180-day statutory period. Holland has failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination in violation of either Title VII or the MHRA because her transfer from being a forklift operator to being a stocker in the electronics department does not constitute an adverse employment action. Holland’s retaliation claims under both Title VII and the MHRA fail for the same reason. Finally, Holland failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that she and her male co-workers performed “equal work” to allow her Equal Pay Act claim to be submitted to a jury. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.


Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fifteen + 13 =