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

Opinionhttp://hr.cch.com/ELD/StewartBelhaven090817.pdf

Comments

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,...

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

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. ...