She plus complains one to during an away-of-urban area assessment, Waggoner shared with her to locate a trip to their particular hotel out of a financial staff member while the he’d getting away examining property

Penry and additionally alludes to evidence indicating you to definitely Waggoner starred pranks on her behalf. You to prank the guy starred half a dozen so you can 10 moments, generally whenever you are she try expecting. Predicated on Penry, Waggoner would sneak-up at the rear of their particular, place their hands on her arms and you will loudly say their particular title to frighten their unique. Additional one or two pranks was basically onetime incidents. One in June 1990 in which Waggoner knocked on her hotel door following hid, and also the other in which he removed their hands from the direction wheel whenever you are riding an automible in which Penry due to the fact a traveler. Inside her reaction, Penry claims you to she doesn’t characterize such will act as “sexual acts by itself,” but contends they nonetheless make-up sexual harassment as “it teach Waggoner’s men dominance over female professionals inside captive facts.” Brand new courtroom disagrees. Penry merchandise zero evidence, except that conjecture, that these circumstances were determined of the sexual animus or gender bias. In her own deposition, Penry says she didn’t understand what determined such as carry out of the Waggoner. Penry also fails to give legal service to own their own “men prominence” concept, additionally the legal isnt certain to construe exactly what generally seems to getting gender-simple buffoonery as a speech from “male dominance” more “captive” women professionals. The truth that Penry may have been “separated and alone” within her works cubicle or “captive” during the Waggoner’s vehicle doesn’t convert gender-neutral pranks with the carry out passionate by the sexual animus or gender prejudice.

Penry plus opposes defendants’ bottom line wisdom motion with proof Waggoner’s conduct during away-of-urban area really works assignments. Penry has the benefit of no facts these attacks resulted of gender bias otherwise animus. On the contrary, they look are gender simple, since carry out Waggoner’s comments, during the a corporate journey, in the their relationship problems. ” The newest courtroom finds zero merit to that dispute. Additionally, Penry’s point out that the latest task to visit with Waggoner constitutes sexual harassment is even unavailing. Rather than research on the other hand, government choices, although injudicious, might not be characterized just like the on account of gender. Select Ballou v. *839 College regarding Kansas Scientific Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains that inside the February 1990, Waggoner didn’t assist their unique lift heavy packages through the an in-web site assessment from a lender and that she had to consume food which have Waggoner while in the aside-of-city checks

Penry next opposes defendants’ summation judgment motion by providing proof of Waggoner’s offending statements and outbursts. Penry complains you to definitely Waggoner commonly yelled in the Betsworth to have their own problems, he demeaned Betsworth behind their own back, and you will asserted that all women throughout the safekeeping agencies have been “dumb” and that their partner was “ignorant.” Penry also complains in the Waggoner’s use of the title “gals” to refer with the ladies in his department. Betsworth testified you to definitely Waggoner yelled during the their own and you will she yelled during the him, but she never ever believed he was abusive to their unique. If you find yourself instance antics may join an offensive or even “hostile” environment, there’s no evidence this aggression based on particular gender-built animosity or prejudice. The brand new 10th Routine enjoys held one to complaint out-of an enthusiastic employee’s functions, as opposed to some type of gender-specific resource, isnt gender-situated conduct. Gross, 53 F.3d during the 1545-46. Simultaneously, “dumb” are a gender neutral label as it can apply equally to each other sexes. Id. on 1543; More youthful v. Finish line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 within * 5 (D.Kan.). So it cause together with relates to Waggoner’s utilization of the name “unaware.” Significantly, Penry produced in her deposition you to Waggoner’s utilization of the label “dumb” to refer to your ladies in the newest safekeeping service wasn’t due to sexual animus, however, try a typical example of their general interest away from excusing their individual mistakes from the progressing blame to many other functions. In the long run, Penry presents no research you to definitely Waggoner’s utilization of the term “gals” stemmed of sexual animus. Predicated on Waggoner, he utilized payday loan Keenesburg the identity from routine, not-out regarding sexual animus. Also, it appears that it wasn’t the phrase in itself one to upset Penry, but that it was employed by Waggoner. Penry stated that she wasn’t upset when her earlier female supervisor regarded Penry or any other equity service professionals given that “their unique girls.”