Derived from Hinckley v. Univ. of Wyoming, issued on August 28 by Judge Scott Skavdahl (D. Wyo.), and only recently surfaced on Westlaw as the appeal proceeds:
{Unless otherwise noted, these facts are uncontested.} The plaintiff … contends that she was unlawfully terminated from her role as Marketing and Communications Specialist I at the University of Wyoming due to her gender, and as retaliation for protected workplace conduct….
Soon after commencing in the position, the plaintiff began to exhibit work performance concerns, including habitual lateness, having a negative demeanor toward colleagues, and making mistakes. Some of these issues might have stemmed from insufficient supervision and direction provided by [Marketing Manager] Cattelan, but Cattelan was not the plaintiff’s supervisor. Regardless, the plaintiff repeated errors that were not attributable to Cattelan’s lack of guidance or oversight.
For instance, in November 2023 the plaintiff was asked to draft a press release celebrating a UW professor who had earned a national accolade. After meeting with the professor, the draft was deemed deficient due to “poor writing quality and lack of accuracy.” The plaintiff replied to the feedback in a combative manner, and the press release ultimately was not published.
On December 8, 2023, the plaintiff posted the item [the first one in the image above -EV] to the College of Business’ social media account (Instagram). The post did not comply with the College of Business’s branding standards and contained a conspicuous spelling error, reading “Go Polks!” instead of “Go Pokes!” (hereinafter, the “first social media error”). Cattelan highlighted this mistake as particularly troubling given that the plaintiff is an alumna of the University of Wyoming….
For more, you can read the full opinion. But here is the core issue, which is followed by the image that I placed at the top of the post:
Defendant has articulated several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff’s termination…. The plaintiff fails to show that the defendant’s stated reasons were merely pretextual or that she experienced disparate treatment….
While the plaintiff disputes some of the phrasing, the vast majority of episodes relating to her subpar performance are undisputed or admitted. She does not dispute that the numerous social media errors were her fault. The plaintiff concedes receipt of the university’s brand book and claims that her work adhered to the College of Business’s branding and voice. Yet, no reasonable jury could find that her social media posts complied with COB branding guidelines. The failure to follow the branding standards is as apparent as distinguishing “Coca-Cola” from “Pepsi” [another social media misstep the court notes elsewhere -EV] or “Polks” versus “Pokes.” …
