She together with complains one to during an aside-of-town assessment, Waggoner informed her locate a journey back to their lodge of a lender employee since he’d be away inspecting possessions

Penry also cites proof indicating one Waggoner played pranks on the. You to prank the guy played half dozen so you can ten moments, primarily while she was expecting. Based on Penry, Waggoner do sneak up about their, lay their hands on their arms and you may loudly state their unique name in order to scare their own. The other a few pranks was single incidents. One out of Summer 1990 in which Waggoner knocked on her lodge door then hid, additionally the most other where he removed his hands on the steering wheel when you are operating an automobile where Penry since a traveler. Inside her effect, Penry says you to definitely she will not characterize such will act as «sexual serves by itself,» but contends it however compose sexual harassment once the «they teach Waggoner’s men prominence more than feminine team during the attentive facts.» New court disagrees. Penry gifts zero research, other than speculation, these activities was basically inspired by the sexual animus or gender prejudice. Within her deposition, Penry claims she don’t know what driven such as for example make of the Waggoner. Penry plus fails to promote court assistance getting their «male prominence» idea, additionally the court is not certain to help you construe exactly what seems to end up being gender-natural buffoonery due to the fact a demonstration out of «men popularity» more than «captive» female teams. The reality that Penry was «remote and by yourself» inside her performs cubicle otherwise «captive» in the Waggoner’s vehicles cannot move gender-neutral pranks to your make passionate from the sexual animus or gender prejudice.

Penry also opposes defendants’ conclusion judgment action that have evidence of Waggoner’s perform through the out-of-area functions assignments. Penry now offers no proof these episodes lead out of gender prejudice otherwise animus. Quite the opposite, they look getting gender basic, because the carry out Waggoner’s statements, throughout the a corporate trip, on the his marital difficulties. » The latest courtroom finds out zero merit to that particular dispute. Concurrently, Penry’s claim that the latest project to visit that have Waggoner comprises sexual harassment is additionally unavailing. Without proof on the other hand, administration conclusion, even when injudicious, is almost certainly not distinguisheded since because of gender. Pick Ballou v. *839 College out of Ohio Medical Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains one to from inside the February 1990, Waggoner don’t let their unique elevator hefty packages throughout an in-website examination out-of a financial hence she was required to eat eating with Waggoner throughout out-of-city monitors

Penry second opposes defendants’ summation view action by offering proof Waggoner’s offensive statements and you can outbursts. Penry complains one to Waggoner tend to yelled on Betsworth to have their particular problems, that he demeaned Betsworth trailing their own back, and you may said that all women in the safekeeping agency have been «dumb» hence their wife are «ignorant.» Penry including complains throughout the Waggoner’s utilization of the label «gals» to mention to the ladies in his institution. Betsworth affirmed one to Waggoner yelled from the their own and you payday loans Cimarron Hills can she yelled at him, but she never thought he was abusive to their. Whenever you are particularly antics get join an unpleasant or even «hostile» environment, there is no research that hostility produced from specific gender-established animosity or bias. This new Tenth Routine has held you to grievance off a keen employee’s work, as opposed to some type of gender-specific site, isnt gender-established conduct. Terrible, 53 F.three-dimensional in the 1545-46. Likewise, «dumb» is an excellent gender neutral label since it can put on equally so you can both sexes. Id. from the 1543; Young v. Finishing line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 in the * 5 (D.Kan.). Which need including applies to Waggoner’s use of the identity «unaware.» Significantly, Penry stated in their own deposition you to Waggoner’s use of the title «dumb» to refer on the feamales in the fresh new safekeeping agency wasn’t because of sexual animus, but are a good example of their standard tendency away from excusing their own errors of the shifting blame to other parties. In the end, Penry merchandise zero proof you to definitely Waggoner’s utilization of the title «gals» stemmed away from sexual animus. Predicated on Waggoner, the guy used the identity of practice, not out of sexual animus. Furthermore, it appears that it was not the definition of in itself you to offended Penry, but it was utilized by Waggoner. Penry stated that she wasn’t offended whenever their earlier in the day women manager regarded Penry or any other guarantee institution group since the «her girls.»