Skip to main content

Spoliation of Evidence That Was Key To Resolution of Title VII Claim Warrants Sanctions


Stewart v. Belhaven University - United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division


Facts:  Erica Stewart ("Stewart") sought a job in the Online Admissions Department of Belhaven University ("Belhaven").  She knew the director of that office, Tarold Durham ("Durham") through "social channels".  Durham apparently led Stewart to believe there would be a vacancy at his department.  Stewart and Durham proceeded to exchange a series of sexually explicit text messages and photos.  Durham indicated he wanted sexual favors in exchange for a job offer while Stewart kept up a flirtatious banter to try and get the job.  

When the job offer failed to materialize, Stewart filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and subsequently filed suit against Belhaven and Durham and asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Mississippi state law.  After Durham was dismissed from the case, Belhaven moved for summary judgment and sought sanctions against Stewart on the grounds she improperly disposed of her cell phone in disregard for her obligation to preserve evidence.

Holding:  (Note, this brief only addresses the sanctions issue from the Court's opinion.  The Court's analysis of Stewart's claim is quite short and for the sake of this brief, inconsequential to this part of the discussion.)  In general, a willful or intentional destruction of evidence to prevent its use in litigation can justify severe sanctions.  (This type of destruction of evidence is referred to as "spoliation".  There you go, readers, a little legalese you can now throw into your everyday conversations!)  As the Court noted, this case turned on text messages and photos sent between Stewart and Durham.  Broad disagreement exists about what was sent, when it was sent, and why it was sent.  Consequently, the parties' cell phones were critical evidence.  

While the Federal Rules of Procedure and this Court's Case Management Order required the phones to be preserved, Stewart failed to comply.  The EEOC investigator intimated that Stewart withheld relevant communications.  When the present suit was filed, Belhaven's attorneys sent Stewart's attorney a letter and demanded her phone be preserved.  During the course of discovery, Stewart even signed a document under oath and affirmed she still had her phone and had not deleted or excluded any of its contents.  However, Belhaven was dismayed when it learned that Stewart's phone had been broken and was no longer in her possession.  (Stewart had apparently taken her phone to an AT&T store and purchased a new one, subsequently discarding her old one.)  Prior to Stewart discarding her phone, no forensic examination had been conducted.

Based upon Stewart's failure to preserve evidence, the Court held that her conduct suggested a pattern of deception.  While Belhaven moved to have her case dismissed, the Court held this was not an appropriate sanction as Stewart's case failed on the merits.  Therefore, monetary sanctions were held to be the only suitable sanction.

Judgment:  The District Court imposed monetary sanctions against Stewart and her attorney for their failure to properly preserve a cell phone (at the heart of the Title VII discrimination claim) and failure to comply with the rules of discovery.

The Takeaway:  This was a rather short and to the point opinion from the Court, but I highlight it for readers for one particular reason:  Whether you are on the employer or employee side in a litigation dispute, do NOT destroy evidence because it could hurt your case.  Of course, no one wants to go into trial with a potential smoking gun sitting out there that could hinder a chance of prevailing.  However, the discovery rules (in particular in Federal Court) are unyielding and stipulate that destroying evidence is improper and can warrant sanctions.  This case is a prime example:  The claim turned on the existence of text messages and photos between Stewart and Durham.  Stewart had to know that she had a duty to preserve evidence (both evidence that helped her case and evidence that hurt her case), especially once she was instructed by Belhaven's counsel to retain the cell phone.  Add to that the fact that she signed a document under oath that affirmed she still had the cell phone in her possession (even though she did not), only hurt her position in the eyes of this Court.  

If readers can remember one thing from the case, it is this:  Spoliation of evidence is improper and if/when a Court finds out about that improper conduct, sanctions are inevitable.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Reeves

Date:  September 8, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/StewartBelhaven090817.pdf

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