Anderson v. Reno

190 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

(We decided to detail out the incidents, as they are amazing that they occurred in the first instance without authorities firing and demoting a whole lot of people). Kathleen Anderson was special agent of the FBI for 20 years. She alleges that her supervisors created a hostile work environment. Her supervisor called her 'gorgeous' and 'the good little girl,' instead of referring to her by name. He whistled at Anderson, called her 'the office sex goddess,' 'sexy,' and told her about her sexual desirability. She alleges that she endured similar acts by fellow FBI employees. In 1987, Anderson entered a briefing room to present an arrest plan to her fellow agents. Waiting for her was an easel containing a drawing of a pair of breasts and the words, 'Operation Cupcake.' Humiliated and embarrassed, Anderson turned to Smith, a supervisor, for assistance. Instead, he said in front of the assembled group, 'This is your training bra session.' In 1987, someone left for Anderson a copy of a rejection letter supposedly sent to a female FBI applicant by J. Edgar Hoover that stated, 'We do not employ women [because] we must have agents who are qualified to cope with any situation they may face.' Handwritten on the note was a message to Anderson: 'KMA . . . even Big John said it (so it must be so).' She also received various vulgar items circulated by unidentified fellow employees including a cartoon depicting varieties of female breasts with her initials scrawled next to an example labeled 'cranberries,' a copy of an article concluding that women who read 'racy' books have more sex, accompanied with a note that read, 'KMA - read any good books lately?' and a greeting card that said, 'Some of us at the office were wondering . . . when you were planning to come into the office naked.' She was constantly passed over for promotion and her supervisor excluded her from critical meetings in her own cases. In 1990, Anderson asked a fellow agent, Adrian Coulter, to assist her in transferring to the Organized Crime Squad in the San Jose office. Eight years earlier, Anderson and Coulter had had a brief consensual sexual relationship. Although he eventually assisted her with the transfer, Coulter continually reminded Anderson of their sexual relationship and asked to rekindle it on numerous occasions. In 1991, Anderson was transferred to the Organized Crime Squad where Coulter worked as an agent. Coulter continued to solicit Anderson for sex, stating that 'she owed him.' In July 1991, Coulter became Anderson's supervisor. Coulter continued to remind Anderson of their previous sexual encounter, telling her that 'he was good in bed.' During this period, Coulter commented on Anderson's weight and the size of her hips and told her that her husband was 'too small' for her. He also told Anderson that he was attracted to another female agent and asked Anderson why the other agent would not sleep around. Over the next three years, Coulter made unwanted and sexually suggestive comments to her and discussed women's roles in the FBI. He then proceeded to exclude her from critical interrogations. After Anderson complained to him about that, Coulter told her that if she wanted better cases, she should 'go to the girls at the BNE [California's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement].' In 1994, Coulter continued to direct sexually harassing comments to Anderson. In May, Coulter continually pestered Anderson to go drinking with him. The following month, Coulter patted her on the buttocks and told her that she was 'putting on weight down there.' Anderson alleges that she was not treated equally by her supervisors in work assignments, assistance, and claims that her Bureau supervisors retaliated against her for filing EEO complaints. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. The district court declined to consider any incident occurring prior to August 6, 1994. As for disparate treatment, the district court assumed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, but found that Anderson could not rebut the defendant's evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual explanation for not assigning other agents to her organized crime investigation. The defendant had come forward with proof that the decision to refrain from assigning additional agents was made, first, because manpower resources were limited due to holiday vacations and second because Anderson had been unable to show that her case actually had an organized crime connection that required additional support. As for retaliation claims, the court found that Anderson had been unable to rebut the defendant's factual assertion that the decision to reassign Anderson in 1994 was made for valid reasons by a higher-level supervisor not involved in Anderson's EEO complaints. And, as to the alleged retaliation that occurred in 1997, the district court ruled that Anderson had not exhausted her administrative remedies. This appeal resulted.