Vanessa Robertson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State of Wisconsin's Department of Health Services ("DHS"). In her complaint, Ms. Robertson set forth claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... alleging retaliation for complaining of discrimination in the workplace. She named DHS and two DHS employees, Marlia Mattke and Tonya Evans, defendants. In October 2009, Ms. Robertson became the deputy director of Milwaukee Enrollment Services ("MilES"), a bureau within DHS. As deputy director, Ms. Robertson directly supervised ten to twenty employees and indirectly supervised roughly 350 others. Later, she participated in the investigation of her former supervisor, Ed Kamin. In April 2014, he resigned in lieu of termination. In September 2014, DHS conducted open recruitment for a new MilES director. She applied, but Ms. Evans was chosen because of her educational background and performance in the selection process. Ms. Robertson sued because she alleged that the DHS retaliated against her participation in the Kamin investigation. She further claims that the DHS instructed Ms. Evans to be meanonce chosen as director, she antagonized, insulted, and undermined Ms. Robertson, which was another sign of retaliation. The Appeals Court says the district court correctly granted summary judgment. With respect to her failure-to-promote claim, DHS provided a non-retaliatory reason for hiring Ms. Evans (she was the better candidate), and Ms. Robertson failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether that proffered reason was pretext. With respect to her claim that DHS continued its retaliation through Ms. Evans, Ms. Robertson also failed to produce sufficient evidence that she suffered a materially adverse action.

Critical Thinking Questions:

1.What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Appeals Court decide?

2.What protected activity did Ms. Robertson engage in? What materially adverse actions does she allege being subjected to as a result of engaging in protected activity?

3.What were Ms. Robertson's qualifications for the director position? Ms. Evan's qualifications? Why does the court reject Ms. Robertson's claim that her nonpromotion was retaliation? Do you agree? Why or why not?

4.Why does the appeals court reject Ms. Robertson's claim that her mistreatment at the hands of Ms. Evans was retaliation? Does the court understate the adverse effects of Ms. Evan's actions, both in terms of Ms. Robertson's ability to function effectively within DHS and the degree of humiliation and disparagement to which she was subjected? Why or why not?

5.The court does not consider in its decision the implications of Ms. Evan's email to the entire staff directing them to speak with a direct supervisor before contacting human resources. What are the likely effects of such a policy on employees' propensity to report retaliation or harassment, particularly when the supervisor is the alleged perpetrator?