Reported / Citable
Background
Elizabeth LaKemper, a Hotels Market Manager for Hopper (USA) Inc., alleged that her former supervisor favored a male colleague over her and other women. She pointed to alleged disparities in reimbursement and bonus treatment, credit for business contributions, and comments about firing her. In August 2022, LaKemper and two female colleagues complained to human resources that the supervisor’s treatment was based on gender.
Hopper later reorganized its sales team, moving LaKemper and the male colleague to another manager. LaKemper received a salary increase in December 2022, but her new manager concluded in May 2023 that LaKemper was underperforming and failed Hopper’s “Keeper Test.” Hopper terminated her on May 25, 2023. LaKemper sued under Title VII for sex discrimination and retaliation.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal granted Hopper summary judgment on all claims. LaKemper did not produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find actionable disparate treatment in reimbursements, bonuses, or other tangible employment terms. Her generalized testimony did not establish that the male colleague was similarly situated, because the record lacked evidence comparing their reimbursement requests, bonus payments, or performance.
The court also held that the prior supervisor’s criticism, threats, and lack of praise did not establish a hostile work environment, and that Hopper effectively ended the complained-of conduct by reassigning LaKemper. Her termination claim failed because the alleged discriminatory supervisor did not participate in the decision, and LaKemper testified that she experienced no sexism under her new manager. Her retaliation claim also failed: the roughly nine-month gap after her HR complaint, lack of evidence that the deciding manager knew of it, and insufficient evidence of pretext defeated any inference that retaliation caused her firing.
Key Takeaways
- A Title VII plaintiff relying on a comparator must offer record evidence showing materially comparable circumstances, not just a general belief that a coworker received better treatment.
- An employer’s reassignment that stops the alleged harassment can constitute effective remedial action.
- For retaliation, temporal distance, absent evidence of decisionmaker knowledge, and a documented performance rationale can foreclose a triable causation or pretext issue.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary demands at summary judgment in Title VII cases. Employees must connect alleged differential treatment and termination decisions to concrete comparator, decisionmaker, and causation evidence.
For employers, the ruling illustrates the value of documenting performance concerns, identifying the actual termination decisionmakers, and taking steps that end reported workplace conduct.