Penry contends the bank’s travel and you may restaurants arrangements “offered a prepared stadium having Waggoner’s sexual perform

She plus complains one during an aside-of-city assessment, Waggoner shared with her to acquire a trip to her resorts out-of a bank personnel just like the he would feel aside inspecting possessions

Penry and additionally alludes to facts appearing one Waggoner starred pranks on her. One to prank the guy played half a dozen in order to ten minutes, primarily when you are she are pregnant. According to Penry, Waggoner perform sneak-up about their particular, set his hands on their particular shoulders and you will loudly say her label to scare their unique. Additional two pranks have been single events. One in June 1990 where Waggoner banged on her behalf hotel doorway and hid, and almost every other in which the guy eliminated his give throughout the direction controls whenever you are driving a vehicle where Penry because the a passenger. Inside her effect, Penry states that she cannot define these types of acts as “sexual acts per se,” but contends they however make-up sexual harassment since the “they illustrate Waggoner’s men prominence more women employees inside the attentive things.” The brand new judge disagrees. Penry merchandise no facts, besides speculation, why these items was in fact driven from the sexual animus otherwise gender bias. In her deposition, Penry states she didn’t know what inspired including make because of the Waggoner. Penry as well as does not offer courtroom support having her “men popularity” theory, plus the legal isnt convinced to help you construe exactly what generally seems to become gender-natural buffoonery since the a presentation regarding “men prominence” over “captive” women group. The truth that Penry was “remote and you can alone” in her own really works cubicle otherwise “captive” in the Waggoner’s automobile does not transfer gender-natural pranks to the perform passionate by sexual animus or gender bias.

Penry together with opposes defendants’ conclusion wisdom motion which have proof Waggoner’s conduct through the away-of-town works assignments. Penry offers no facts these episodes resulted out of gender prejudice otherwise animus. On the other hand, they look getting gender simple, just like the create Waggoner’s comments, through the a business travels, throughout the his marital difficulties. ” The new courtroom finds out no merit to that disagreement. Likewise, Penry’s say that the new task traveling having Waggoner comprises sexual harassment is additionally unavailing. Instead of research to the contrary, administration choices, even if injudicious, is almost certainly not classified once the due to gender. See Ballou v. *839 College out of Ohio Medical Ctr., 871 F. Supp. 1384, 1390 (D.Kan.1994).

Penry complains you to definitely when you look at the February 1990, Waggoner don’t assist their unique elevator hefty boxes during an in-website review away from a bank and that she was required to eat food with Waggoner during the away-of-city monitors

Penry 2nd opposes defendants’ summary wisdom action through providing proof Waggoner’s offensive comments and you may outbursts. Penry complains one Waggoner commonly yelled at Betsworth to own their unique mistakes, which he demeaned Betsworth about their right back, and you can asserted that every woman regarding safekeeping company was basically “dumb” which their wife try “unaware.” Penry together with complains about Waggoner’s utilization of the name “gals” to refer for the women in his institution. Betsworth testified one Waggoner yelled at the their and you may she yelled during the your, but she never ever noticed he had been abusive in order to their unique. When you find yourself such antics will get subscribe to an offending otherwise “hostile” ecosystem, there is absolutely no research this aggression produced by certain gender-mainly based animosity otherwise prejudice. The fresh new 10th Circuit keeps stored one to problem of a keen employee’s works, in place of some kind of gender-certain reference, isnt gender-built make. Terrible, 53 F.3d at 1545-46. Likewise, “dumb” try an excellent gender basic identity as it can use similarly so you’re able to each other sexes. Id. from the 1543; More youthful v. Finishing line, Inc., 1995 WL 472783 at the * 5 (D.Kan.). That it cause together with relates to Waggoner’s utilization of Elbert loans the name “unaware.” Significantly, Penry stated in her deposition you to Waggoner’s use of the title “dumb” to mention on the ladies in brand new safekeeping service was not on account of sexual animus, but is a typical example of their general tendency out of excusing their own errors by shifting blame for other parties. In the long run, Penry gifts no evidence you to definitely Waggoner’s utilization of the name “gals” stemmed off sexual animus. Considering Waggoner, the guy made use of the term out-of habit, not out from sexual animus. More over, it seems that it was not the definition of in itself one to upset Penry, but that it was used by Waggoner. Penry stated that she wasn’t upset when their earlier female supervisor described Penry or any other equity service staff because “their own girls.”