Penry argues that bank’s travelling and you will dining agreements “provided a ready arena to possess Waggoner’s sexual perform

She as well as complains you to during an out-of-town evaluation, Waggoner informed her locate a journey to their unique resorts out-of a bank worker as the he would be out examining assets

Penry also alludes to facts exhibiting one Waggoner played pranks on her. One prank the guy played half a dozen to ten moments, mostly whenever you are she are expecting. According to Penry, Waggoner manage sneak-up at the rear of her, place their practical their particular arms and loudly say their unique label in order to frighten their. Another a few pranks have been onetime situations. One in June 1990 in which Waggoner knocked on the lodge home right after which hid, therefore the most other where he removed his hands from the steering controls while you are driving a car or truck where Penry given that a passenger. In her effect, Penry states you to definitely she cannot define these acts as “sexual serves by itself,” however, contends they however compose sexual harassment just like the “it show Waggoner’s men prominence over women group for the captive affairs.” The new courtroom disagrees. Penry presents no research, other than speculation, why these items were motivated from the sexual animus otherwise gender prejudice. Within her deposition, Penry says she don’t understand what passionate such as run of the Waggoner. Penry along with does not render judge help for their “male prominence” idea, in addition to court isnt convinced so you can construe what generally seems to be gender-neutral buffoonery as the a presentation of “men popularity” over “captive” women professionals. The fact that Penry may have been “separated and you may alone” in her works cubicle or “captive” into the Waggoner’s automobile does not move gender-neutral pranks with the make passionate because of the sexual animus otherwise gender bias.

Penry plus opposes defendants’ realization judgment motion having proof Waggoner’s make while loan places Copper Mountain in the aside-of-urban area performs projects. Penry offers zero proof that these attacks lead away from gender bias or animus. On the other hand, they look becoming gender basic, as create Waggoner’s statements, through the a corporate excursion, regarding his relationship issues. ” The new court finds zero quality to that particular argument. While doing so, Penry’s say that the new assignment to search that have Waggoner comprises sexual harassment is also unavailing. Versus research quite the opposite, administration behavior, whether or not injudicious, is almost certainly not defined as the on account of gender. Come across Ballou v. *839 University from Kansas Scientific Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains you to during the March 1990, Waggoner did not assist their lift heavy packages during the an on-webpages evaluation from a lender and therefore she needed to eat dining with Waggoner while in the out-of-city monitors

Penry next opposes defendants’ summary judgment motion by providing evidence of Waggoner’s offending statements and outbursts. Penry complains you to Waggoner will yelled at Betsworth to have their unique errors, that he demeaned Betsworth about their unique right back, and asserted that every woman about safekeeping department was basically “dumb” and this his partner is “ignorant.” Penry plus complains regarding Waggoner’s use of the name “gals” to refer to the feamales in his department. Betsworth testified one to Waggoner yelled at the their and she yelled in the your, but she never ever experienced he had been abusive to help you her. If you are such as antics will get sign up for an unpleasant otherwise “hostile” environment, there is no proof this aggression produced from particular gender-centered animosity or prejudice. The fresh 10th Circuit possess stored you to definitely problem away from a keen employee’s works, as opposed to a gender-certain reference, isnt gender-established carry out. Gross, 53 F.3d from the 1545-46. On top of that, “dumb” is good gender neutral term because it can put on equally in order to one another sexes. Id. from the 1543; More youthful v. Finishing line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 during the * 5 (D.Kan.). It reasoning and relates to Waggoner’s use of the title “unaware.” Somewhat, Penry produced in their particular deposition you to definitely Waggoner’s utilization of the label “dumb” to mention for the feamales in the brand new safekeeping department was not because of sexual animus, however, is actually a good example of his general interest off excusing his own problems of the progressing blame with other people. Finally, Penry presents zero proof one to Waggoner’s utilization of the identity “gals” stemmed out of sexual animus. According to Waggoner, the guy made use of the title regarding practice, not-out away from sexual animus. Additionally, it seems that it was not the term in itself you to definitely upset Penry, but it absolutely was used by Waggoner. Penry reported that she wasn’t offended when their unique past female management labeled Penry or any other security company personnel as the “her girls.”