She also complains you to definitely during an away-of-urban area evaluation, Waggoner shared with her to locate a journey back once again to their particular hotel out of a lender staff as however become aside examining possessions

Penry plus cites evidence exhibiting you to Waggoner played pranks on her. You to definitely prank he played half a dozen to help you ten minutes, generally if you find yourself she are expecting. Centered on Penry, Waggoner create sneak up at the rear of their particular, put their practical their shoulders and you will loudly state their unique title so you’re able to frighten their particular. The other several pranks was onetime occurrences. One out of June 1990 where Waggoner banged on her resort home following hid, therefore the almost every other where the guy removed his give in the direction controls if you are riding an automobile in which Penry given that a passenger. In her own reaction, Penry states one to she will not define this type of acts as “sexual serves per se,” but argues it nonetheless constitute sexual harassment since the “they train Waggoner’s men prominence more than female professionals for the attentive issues.” The newest court disagrees. Penry gifts zero evidence, aside from speculation, these particular points had been passionate because of the sexual animus or gender bias. Within her deposition, Penry says she don’t know very well what determined such as for instance make because of the Waggoner. Penry together with doesn’t give judge help for their unique “male prominence” theory, in addition to courtroom isnt certain to construe what seems to be gender-simple buffoonery since a presentation out of “male prominence” more than “captive” feminine teams. The fact Penry may have been “isolated and by yourself” in her own really works cubicle otherwise “captive” inside the Waggoner’s automobile will not transfer gender-neutral pranks on conduct driven by sexual animus or gender bias.

Penry together with opposes defendants’ summary wisdom activity with evidence of Waggoner’s make through the away-of-area functions projects. Penry offers zero facts these episodes resulted out of gender bias or animus. To the contrary, they look to be gender basic, due to the fact carry out Waggoner’s comments, while in the a corporate journey, throughout the his relationship problems. ” The fresh judge finds out no quality to this disagreement. Likewise, Penry’s say that new assignment to visit with Waggoner constitutes sexual harassment is also unavailing. Rather than proof to the contrary, management choices, no matter if injudicious, may not be distinguisheded given that on account of gender. Get a hold of Ballou v. *839 College regarding Ohio Scientific Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains one inside February 1990, Waggoner failed to help their unique elevator heavier packages during the an on-website check from a lender which she had to eat dining that have Waggoner during away-of-area checks

Penry second opposes defendants’ conclusion wisdom action by providing proof Waggoner’s offending statements and outbursts. Penry complains that Waggoner often yelled within Betsworth getting their unique errors, he demeaned Betsworth about their own straight back, and you will said that americash loans Evans every woman from the safekeeping department were “dumb” and therefore his wife are “unaware.” Penry along with complains regarding the Waggoner’s utilization of the name “gals” to mention for the women in his department. Betsworth affirmed you to definitely Waggoner yelled in the their unique and she yelled at the your, however, she never sensed he had been abusive so you can their own. When you are such antics can get contribute to an offending if not “hostile” environment, there is absolutely no facts that this hostility produced by specific gender-situated animosity or bias. The fresh new Tenth Routine possess held one to ailment out of an enthusiastic employee’s work, in place of some type of gender-particular resource, isnt gender-based make. Terrible, 53 F.3d during the 1545-46. At the same time, “dumb” are an excellent gender simple label whilst can apply equally in order to each other sexes. Id. in the 1543; Younger v. Finishing line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 during the * 5 (D.Kan.). This cause as well as pertains to Waggoner’s utilization of the identity “ignorant.” Significantly, Penry stated in their own deposition one Waggoner’s use of the term “dumb” to refer into ladies in the new safekeeping agency wasn’t due to sexual animus, but was a good example of their general interest of excusing his own errors by the moving on fault some other people. Ultimately, Penry gifts no research one Waggoner’s utilization of the name “gals” stemmed out of sexual animus. Centered on Waggoner, he used the identity off behavior, not out out of sexual animus. Moreover, it appears that it wasn’t the expression in itself one offended Penry, however, it was used by Waggoner. Penry stated that she was not offended when their particular early in the day female manager regarded Penry or other guarantee agency teams as the “her girls.”