She and complains you to during an out-of-area check, Waggoner told her to obtain a trip back to her resort out of a bank worker since he would end up being aside examining property

Penry including alludes to research appearing you to definitely Waggoner starred pranks on her behalf. One prank he starred six so you’re able to 10 minutes, primarily while you are she are expecting. Centered on Penry, Waggoner create sneak-up trailing their own, set his practical their particular shoulders and loudly say their label to scare their particular. One other one or two pranks were once incidents. One out of Summer 1990 where Waggoner knocked on her resort door then hid, additionally the most other in which the guy removed their hands regarding the steering controls if you’re riding an auto in which Penry given that a passenger. Inside her impulse, Penry states one she will not define these types of will act as “sexual serves by itself,” but contends it still compose sexual harassment just like the “they teach Waggoner’s male popularity more than female staff from inside the attentive activities.” The fresh new legal disagrees. Penry presents zero facts, other than speculation, that these activities was passionate from the sexual animus otherwise gender bias. Inside her deposition, Penry says she did not understand what driven instance carry out of the Waggoner. Penry along with fails to offer judge support getting their own “male prominence” principle, and the judge isnt certain to construe what seems to getting gender-simple buffoonery just like the a presentation away from “male prominence” over “captive” feminine group. The point that Penry was “remote and you can by yourself” inside her functions cubicle otherwise “captive” inside the Waggoner’s vehicle cannot convert gender-neutral pranks towards run driven by the sexual animus or gender prejudice.

Penry in addition to opposes defendants’ realization wisdom action which have proof Waggoner’s run while in the aside-of-urban area really works assignments. Penry offers zero facts these particular symptoms lead off gender prejudice or animus. Quite the opposite, they look to be gender basic, because the would Waggoner’s comments, through the a corporate excursion, throughout the their marital problems. ” The fresh new legal finds no merit to that disagreement. On top of that, Penry’s point out that the newest task traveling that have Waggoner constitutes sexual harassment is also unavailing. Instead of evidence to the contrary, management decisions, regardless if injudicious, is almost certainly not defined since due to gender. Discover Ballou v. *839 College from Ohio Scientific Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains you to in the February 1990, Waggoner failed to help their lift big packages during an on-web site examination regarding a bank and this she was required to eat restaurants which have Waggoner while in the away-of-area monitors

Penry 2nd opposes defendants’ summation judgment action by offering proof Waggoner’s offensive comments and you will outbursts. Penry complains one to Waggoner tend to yelled during the Betsworth to possess their particular errors, he demeaned Betsworth behind her straight back, and you may mentioned that every woman on the safekeeping institution was “dumb” hence his partner is actually “ignorant.” Penry plus complains throughout the Waggoner’s use of the term “gals” to refer to your feamales in their company. Betsworth affirmed one Waggoner yelled in the their and she yelled within your, however, she never felt he was abusive so you can their unique. When you’re such as antics can get sign up for an offending or even “hostile” environment, there is no facts that hostility derived from some gender-dependent animosity otherwise prejudice. The brand new Tenth Routine features stored you to definitely grievance off a keen employee’s works, rather than some sort of gender-certain resource, is not gender-based make. Gross, 53 F.3d from the 1545-46. Concurrently, “dumb” was a gender basic term as it can apply equally so you’re able to both sexes. Id. in the 1543; Young v. Finishing line, Inc $2k loans Flagler., 1995 WL 472783 on * 5 (D.Kan.). That it reason including relates to Waggoner’s use of the title “ignorant.” Rather, Penry produced in her deposition you to definitely Waggoner’s use of the term “dumb” to refer to the ladies in the fresh safekeeping agencies was not due to sexual animus, but is actually a good example of his general inclination from excusing their individual mistakes of the moving forward fault for other activities. Finally, Penry presents zero proof one Waggoner’s use of the title “gals” stemmed regarding sexual animus. Centered on Waggoner, he used the identity off habit, not out of sexual animus. Moreover, it appears that it wasn’t the term itself that upset Penry, but that it was utilized by Waggoner. Penry reported that she wasn’t upset whenever their unique prior feminine supervisor regarded Penry or other security department team since the “their unique girls.”