## Facts

- Donna F. Pryor worked as a legal secretary at a large Chicago law firm and had a long history of good performance reviews.
- In 1994, while assigned to a partner, Pryor alleged five incidents: remarks about a lingerie catalog and wanting to see photos; a comment about preferring her in different shoes; a question about clothing colors; showing her a book with images of women in bondage/black leather unrelated to work; and a comment suggesting a new outfit might be from the lingerie catalog.
- Pryor complained internally that the partner’s conduct constituted sex discrimination/harassment under Title VII.
- Soon after the complaint, the firm’s personnel manager observed Pryor doing a visiting friend’s fingernails at work.
- The firm terminated Pryor, citing the fingernail incident and asserting additional concerns about performance, attire, and failure to take Excel training.
- Pryor disputed these reasons, asserting the nail activity occurred during a break, Excel training was not actually required (and she enrolled anyway), and the firm’s immediate termination despite her record and lack of prior discipline suggested retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged incidents were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an actionable hostile work environment under Title VII.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that Pryor was discharged in retaliation for complaining about harassment, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the hostile work environment claim because the incidents, even if true, were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the retaliation claim because the timing of the discharge and evidence undermining the firm’s stated reasons created a triable issue of pretext.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on retaliation.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII hostile work environment liability requires workplace harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to actually change the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment; Title VII does not reach all sexualized or inappropriate workplace conduct.
- Acts characterized as innocuous, mildly flirtatious, or only modestly offensive, particularly when limited in number and spread over time, may be insufficient as a matter of law to meet the severe-or-pervasive threshold.
- A retaliation claim may proceed even if the underlying harassment claim fails, where evidence supports an inference that the employer’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual.
- Temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action, a history of positive performance, and a departure from asserted progressive discipline practices may support a jury finding of retaliatory motive.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Pryor’s allegations did not establish a hostile work environment under Title VII, but it allowed her retaliation claim to go to trial because the discharge soon after her complaint and conflicting evidence about the employer’s reasons could support a finding of pretext.


Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 212 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2000)