Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Analía González, Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, Marco Molina Earn Recognition from Lexology Index: Arbitration 2026

Employment Law Spotlight

Sixth Circuit Says ‘That’s a Wrap’ to Hostile Work Environment Claims

The Bargaining Table

AD Nauseam

AD Nauseam: ANA 2025 – Phyllis Marcus

There’s a story in Hollywood that when George Lucas was making the original Star Wars in the 1970s, he had a very minimalist directing style. According to Carrie Fisher and Anthony Daniels, after finishing a take, Lucas would often tell the actors “Good job” and then ask them to do the scene again but this time “faster and more intense.” It was then up to the actors to determine how, precisely, to make themselves more intense.

core/paragraph

In the matter of Wargo v. MJR Partridge Creek Digital Cinema 14, Case No. 25-1143 (6th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), the Sixth Circuit determined that the alleged harassment was decidedly the opposite because it was neither sufficiently fast nor intense – the alleged conduct was not near enough in time or severe enough to qualify as actionable. The appellant, Terra Wargo, worked at a movie theater in Michigan. She initially started behind the concession stand and eventually was promoted to full-time manager. Wargo then applied to be the general manager of the theater, but the company elected to transfer Paul Finnigan from another branch to fill the role. Wargo declined the offer to transfer to Finnigan’s old theater and decided to work with him instead.

The relationship between the two was immediately rocky. Wargo felt Finnigan was a bad manager and communicated poorly, and she suspected that Finnigan believed she was insubordinate. Additionally, Finnigan texted Wargo on her personal phone, telling her things such as “I will teach you everything,” “You just have to trust me, and my methods” and “I can show you everything … [i]f you let me.” Finnigan offered to treat her to dinner, but Wargo declined.

The conflict escalated until Finnigan confronted Wargo at the theater and asked her why she didn’t like him and to tell him what he had done wrong. They openly argued, at which point Finnigan followed Wargo to an office next door where, Wargo alleges, Finnigan blocked the door and “touched [her] arm” for “five to 10 seconds” to prevent her from leaving. Wargo subsequently filed an internal complaint, and the company investigated the incident. Finnigan was placed on a PIP, and Wargo was transferred to a different theater.

Despite the fact that she no longer worked there, Wargo returned to her original location to hold a closed-door meeting with her former co-workers. The next day, one of the co-workers quit and filed a harassment complaint against Finnigan. This meeting, in combination with her earlier outburst with Finnigan, resulted in Wargo’s termination for insubordination and failure to follow the directive not to discuss the allegations and investigation with her co-workers.

As a result, Wargo brought claims for sexual harassment and discrimination under federal and Michigan state law. The <a>Eastern District of Michigan </a>granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The Sixth Circuit, affirming, found that Finnigan’s repeated invitations to a restaurant occurred only three times in a three-month period, were “sporadic” and did not involve “explicit sexual pressure or sexual conduct,” and that Finnigan’s texts, while ambiguous, were tied to specific workplace problems, such as teaching Wargo how to break down the concession stand sales.

Moreover, the heated argument between Finnigan and Wargo did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment. They “argued about work problems,” and Finnigan’s blocking the door and making physical contact with Wargo for “five to 10 seconds” did not constitute harassment because, simply put, it was not intense enough. The one-time touching was not sexual or sufficiently pervasive.

Likewise, the Sixth Circuit found that Wargo’s discrimination claim failed, as her transfer to another location with identical pay and benefits did not constitute an adverse employment action and she could not identify a similarly situated male employee whom the company had treated more favorably.

While the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, it noted that Wargo might have had direct evidence of retaliation when the company admitted that it fired her, in part, for discussing the investigation with her co-workers. However, the Sixth Circuit pointed out that Wargo never raised this theory of retaliation during the summary judgment briefing. As a result, she cannot raise it now, and the indirect evidence did not establish a question of fact to survive summary judgment.

The Bottom Line: The Sixth Circuit ruling here affirms that the timing, amount and intensity of comments and actions are critical to proving a hostile work environment. And, as always, raise every argument you need at summary judgment – otherwise, you may regret leaving something on the cutting room floor come appeal.

Featured Insights