Skip to main content

Prompt Investigation By Employer Can Defeat Sexual Harassment Claim


Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc. and Autozoners, LLC - United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division


Facts:  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed suit against Autozone on behalf of Lakindal Smith ("Smith"), Cherrelle Willet ("Willett"), and Robyn McEuen ("McEuen") on the grounds that Autozone had committed unlawful employment practices.  The EEOC alleged that Gustavus Townsel ("Townsel"), store manager where Smith, Willett, and McEuen worked, created a hostile work environment by engaging in "lewd and obscene" behavior and that Autozone failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial measures.  The employees apparently complained about Townsel's conduct to a District Manager and Human Resources Manager.  The Human Resources manager conducted interviews with the employees and investigated the complained of conduct.  Townsel was subsequently transferred to another store and subsequently discharged a few weeks later.

Autozone moved for summary judgment on the EEOC's claims. 

Holding:  The District Court began its analysis of the EEOC's suit with a nod to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires a claimant establish that sexual harassment created a hostile work environment by proving that 1) she was a member of a protected class; 2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; 3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; 4) the charged sexual harassment created a hostile work environment; and 5) the employer is liable.  Autozone argued in its motion for summary judgment that the EEOC could not establish the fifth factor of the test.  

In this case, the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Vance v. Ball State University was referenced in regard to the notion that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employers has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim.  In the situation when the harassing employee is not in a "supervisor" position, the plaintiff must show the employer knew or should have known of the offensive conduct but failed to take appropriate corrective action.  Based upon the undisputed facts, once Autozone knew or had reason to know that harassment was taking place, steps were taken to investigate the complained of conduct, the employees who complained of Townsel's conduct were interviewed, and Townsel was ultimately transferred to another store.  As a result, the evidence established that Autozone took appropriate corrective action upon being informed of the complained of conduct by Townsel.

Judgment:  The District Court granted Autozone's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the company took appropriate corrective action immediately after several employees complained about the conduct of a manager and made the company aware of the offensive conduct.

The Takeaway:  I point this case out to readers to show the importance of taking action once an employee complains of offensive conduct in the workplace.  Given the standard that is applied, the plaintiff must show the employer knew or should have known of the offensive conduct but failed to take appropriate corrective action, the timeline of what the employer does (or does not do) is vital.  

In this case, the facts demonstrated that the employees who complained of Townsel's offensive conduct were interviewed and a subsequent investigation was immediately launched.  Rather than being reactive, Autozone was proactive about the situation and sought to investigate and remedy the matter, based upon the offensive conduct.  In situations such as this, it is imperative that the employer be diligent and take steps to remedy the complained of conduct...Failing to do so can ultimately be detrimental.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Mays

Date:  July 13, 2016

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiY2rHSlJnOAhWERCYKHfT3DFIQFghIMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhr.cch.com%2FELD%2FEEOCAutoZone071316.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF3BD_gs7IEs0W-cUz8B5ZABi32AQ&sig2=tVuoCIGx-vC3GE2U8U0hEw&bvm=bv.128617741,d.cWw

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more