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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more