## Facts

- Marcia A. Hocevar worked for Purdue Frederick Company as a pharmaceutical sales representative beginning in 1988 and later served as a sales training manager.
- During her early years, she consistently received strong evaluations, high national rankings, and multiple promotions.
- In 1994, Hocevar transferred back to Minnesota and came under the supervision of Timothy Amundsen, a former co-worker who had become her district manager.
- After the transfer, Amundsen repeatedly rated Hocevar at the lowest performance level despite continued sales success, including documented sales growth and bonuses.
- Amundsen accused Hocevar of falsifying sales reports; an internal investigation found no wrongdoing.
- Purdue removed lucrative portions of Hocevar’s territory, including key accounts, and the removed area went unstaffed for a period.
- Amundsen recommended Hocevar for probation based on performance.
- Over roughly two years, Amundsen allegedly engaged in gender-based offensive conduct at work, including distributing sexually explicit materials at business meetings, using degrading epithets about women, and making threatening or hostile remarks toward female staff.
- Hocevar took disability leave after an automobile accident and later sought part-time work as an accommodation; her request was denied.
- Hocevar remained on disability leave and was terminated in June 1996.
- Hocevar asserted she made internal complaints about sexual harassment and discrimination and that adverse actions followed her complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged conduct and workplace atmosphere were sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a Title VII hostile work environment based on sex.
2. Whether Hocevar produced sufficient evidence that Purdue took adverse employment actions because she engaged in protected activity, supporting a Title VII retaliation claim.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Purdue on the hostile work environment claim.
- The court held the alleged harassment, though offensive and unprofessional, was not severe or pervasive enough on this record to alter the conditions of employment under Title VII.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Purdue on the retaliation claim.
- The court remanded the retaliation claim for trial, concluding a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between Hocevar’s complaints and subsequent adverse actions.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment requires conduct that is objectively and subjectively hostile and is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment.
- Courts assess hostile environment claims under the totality of the circumstances, including frequency, severity, whether conduct is threatening or humiliating, and interference with work performance.
- Title VII does not impose liability for general workplace incivility; offensive remarks alone may be insufficient absent the required severity or pervasiveness.
- Title VII retaliation requires evidence of (1) protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection between the two.
- Temporal proximity, abrupt negative treatment following complaints, and sharp inconsistencies between documented performance and stated performance-based justifications can create a triable issue on retaliatory motive.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed because the record could support an inference that adverse actions followed and were linked to Hocevar’s internal complaints, but it rejected the hostile environment claim because the alleged harassment did not meet the required level of severity or pervasiveness under Title VII.


Hocevar v. Purdue Frederick Co., 223 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2000)