No. 22-2827 ___________________________

Heidi Nelson, formerly known as Heidi Martin

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Lake Elmo Bank; Olivia Alvarado, Individually and as an employee

Defendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: May 9, 2023 Filed: August 1, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Lake Elmo Bank fired Heidi S. Nelson after receiving a report that she sexually harassed another employee. Nelson sued the Bank, claiming her termination was based on sex in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.08, subd. 2(2) and (3). She also sued the Bank and the reporting employee for defamation. On both claims, the district court1 granted summary judgment to the defendants. Nelson appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

Heidi S. Nelson worked as the Assistant Vice President of Teller Services at the Bank. She supervised Olivia Alvarado, a bank teller. In September 2018, according to Alvarado, Nelson made sexual advances toward her at a local bar. Alvarado reported that Nelson grabbed her breasts; told her “I’d like to take you in the bathroom and f**k you”; and tried to stick her tongue in her mouth and her boyfriend’s mouth. Alvarado later discussed the incident with her mother, stepfather, and boyfriend.

By the Bank’s harassment policy, employees were to promptly report any unlawful sexual harassment to their Group Leader or Supervisor, but “if your Group Leader or Supervisor is participating in the suspected behavior, then you should report it to one of the following individuals . . . Director of Human Resources . . . Human Resources Manager . . . President/CEO.” The Bank reserved the right “to determine whether particular conduct violates any part of this policy . . . . If investigation . . . produces evidence of inappropriate behavior, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken, up to and including, unpaid suspension and/or immediate termination of employment.”

Alvarado reported the incident to Nelson’s supervisor. Both immediately met with the Human Resources Manager. The same day, the HR Manager interviewed Alvarado and removed her from Nelson’s team and into a new position. The next day, the Director of HR and the HR Manager interviewed Nelson. According to them, Nelson said that her behavior at the bar was just “friendly banter” and there

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- “was a history of things like this between her and Olivia and other friends at the Bank.” Six days later, the Bank fired Nelson, concluding her conduct violated its harassment policy. Nelson sued the Bank for discrimination under the MHRA and asserted a defamation claim against the Bank and Alvarado. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing both claims. Nelson appeals.

This court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment and the district court’s conclusions of law. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Summary judgment is proper if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To create a genuine dispute of fact, “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the pla