Although a Wal-Mart worker made a protected complaint about sexual harassment to the company, she was not fired in illegal retaliation after the investigation concluded that she was the source of sexual rumors about herself and the accused male employee, a federal judge in Oklahoma rules.

The former employee had accused the male co-worker of making sexually suggestive remarks to her, but did not immediately complain to management as required by company policy. When she subsequently did complain, Wal-Mart promptly responded with an investigation and corrective action, the Court finds. As a result of the investigation, the company found that the complainant was actively spreading sexually-related gossip and rumors about her and the accused employee. Since the complaining employee was already at the last step of the company’s discipline procedure, she was terminated for the infraction.

The former employee could not prove that the company had a mixed motive for terminating her, or that the company was using the infraction as a pretext for her discharge, the Court rules in dismissing her case. Barley v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP