Penry contends the bank’s traveling and you will dinner plans “provided a prepared arena getting Waggoner’s sexual carry out

She including complains you to definitely during an away-of-urban area check, Waggoner told her to get a drive back into their hotel out-of a lender employee just like the he would end up being out inspecting property

Penry plus alludes to evidence exhibiting one to Waggoner starred pranks on her behalf. That prank the guy starred half dozen to ten minutes, mostly when you find yourself she is pregnant. Centered on Penry, Waggoner do sneak-up at the rear of their unique, put his on the job her shoulders and you will loudly say their particular title in order to scare their. One other a few pranks were once occurrences. One in June 1990 in which Waggoner kicked on her resorts doorway immediately after which hid, while the most other where the guy removed his hands about direction controls if you find yourself riding a car or truck where Penry because a traveler. Inside her impulse, Penry claims you to she cannot characterize such will act as “sexual serves per se,” but argues it nonetheless constitute sexual harassment since the “they illustrate Waggoner’s men dominance over feminine employees inside attentive issues.” This new judge disagrees. Penry gift ideas zero facts, other than conjecture, that these products was motivated from the sexual animus otherwise gender bias. In her deposition, Penry says she failed to know very well what determined such run because of the Waggoner. Penry plus does not provide legal help for their own “male dominance” concept, while the legal isnt persuaded to construe what generally seems to become gender-basic buffoonery because the a speech regarding “male dominance” over “captive” female team. That Penry was “isolated and alone” in her own work cubicle or “captive” in the Waggoner’s vehicle will not convert gender-basic pranks with the perform inspired of the sexual animus or gender prejudice.

Penry and opposes defendants’ summation wisdom activity having proof of Waggoner’s carry out while in the out-of-urban area work projects. Penry even offers no evidence these symptoms lead of gender prejudice or animus. On the contrary, they look becoming gender simple, because the carry out Waggoner’s statements, while in the a business travel, from the his marital problems. ” The newest court finds no quality to this argument. At exactly the same time, Penry’s declare that the assignment to search with Waggoner constitutes sexual harassment is even unavailing. Versus proof on the other hand, government conclusion, even when injudicious, might not be classified since because of gender. See Ballou v. *839 School out of Kansas Scientific Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains that inside March 1990, Waggoner didn’t help Fort Collins loans their particular elevator heavier boxes through the an in-site inspection of a financial which she had to consume dinner that have Waggoner throughout the aside-of-city inspections

Penry next opposes defendants’ realization wisdom actions by offering proof of Waggoner’s offensive comments and you will outbursts. Penry complains that Waggoner commonly yelled at Betsworth getting their own mistakes, which he demeaned Betsworth at the rear of their own right back, and you will mentioned that every woman regarding the safekeeping agency was basically “dumb” and this his wife try “unaware.” Penry as well as complains on the Waggoner’s use of the label “gals” to refer to your ladies in his department. Betsworth affirmed you to definitely Waggoner yelled at the their unique and you can she yelled at him, however, she never ever experienced he had been abusive to her. While such as for example antics could possibly get contribute to an offensive otherwise “hostile” ecosystem, there’s absolutely no evidence this aggression produced from some gender-oriented animosity otherwise prejudice. The newest 10th Circuit have held that ailment out-of a keen employee’s work, instead some sort of gender-certain reference, is not gender-created perform. Terrible, 53 F.3d in the 1545-46. At the same time, “dumb” is actually a beneficial gender simple title because can use just as so you’re able to each other sexes. Id. at the 1543; More youthful v. Finishing line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 on * 5 (D.Kan.). So it reason and relates to Waggoner’s utilization of the label “unaware.” Notably, Penry stated in their unique deposition you to definitely Waggoner’s utilization of the title “dumb” to mention with the women in the fresh new safekeeping department wasn’t on account of sexual animus, however, was an example of their standard inclination of excusing his individual errors because of the moving forward blame to other parties. In the end, Penry merchandise no facts you to Waggoner’s utilization of the label “gals” stemmed off sexual animus. Based on Waggoner, the guy used the title regarding behavior, not-out off sexual animus. Additionally, it would appear that it wasn’t the definition of by itself that upset Penry, however, it absolutely was employed by Waggoner. Penry reported that she was not upset whenever her past women supervisor labeled Penry or any other collateral agencies group as “their unique girls.”