Alleged Happy Hour Misconduct By Co-Worker Allows Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claim to Proceed

Echevarria v. Utitec, Inc. - United States District Court, District of Connecticut

Facts:  Haydee Echevarria ("Echevarria") began working for Utitec, Inc. ("Utitec") on April 23, 2013 as a receptionist and assisted various managerial employees as needed.  Echevarria met Arthur Dostaler ("Dostaler"), an eyelet toolmaker at Utitec, shortly after she was hired and their relationship initially consisted of simply exchanging pleasantries.  In early 2014, Dostaler allegedly began hanging around Echevarria's desk to talk with her about his personal life, work complaints, and Echevarria's appearance.  At Echevarria's request, Dostaler stopped making comments about her clothing and lipstick but she believed he kept giving her "I want you looks".  While Dostaler denied making any comments or giving any looks, Echevarria apparently did not report anything to her supervisors or human resources.

On July 17, 2014,  Echevarria, Dostaler, and about 8 other Utitec employees went to a happy hour.  Echevarria was not required to attend, was not paid for her time there, and was not aware of any business being conducted.  During the happy hour, Dostaler apparently approached Echevarria and tried to feed her food, asked her what time she was leaving, why she didn't let her hair down, and why she seemed uptight.  Echevarria apparently rebuffed Dostaler and asked him to keep away.  The morning after the happy hour, Dostaler apparently "lurked" near Echevarria's area and told her he was disappointed she did not let her hair down or let loose the night before.

Echevarria did not immediately go to human resources to complain about Dostaler's conduct.  At some point between July 18, 2014 and August 6, 2014, Samuel Oakes ("Oakes") discussed Dostaler's happy hour behavior with Utitec's CEO.  The CEO discussed the matter with Kara Harlow ("Harlow"), Utitec's Director of Human Resources, who chose not to open a formal investigation as the conduct did not occur at a work event or during work hours.

After Echevarria formally reported the complained of conduct to Harlow on August 15, 2014, Harlow was to reprimand Dostaler three days later.  The morning of August 18, 2014, Dostaler came up behind Echevarria, brushed up against her, grabbed her hand for a few seconds.  A few months later, Utitec underwent a renovation and moved Echevarria temporarily.  To avoid being placed near Dostaler, she was offered a promotion, although Echevarria claimed it had less opportunity for advancement.  Echevarria ultimately took a great deal of medical leave and was terminated when she did not return to work.

Echevarria subsequently filed suit against Utitec on the grounds she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and retaliated against for complaining about the alleged sexual harassment by Dostaler.  Both parties proceeded to move for summary judgment.

Holding:  To keep things clear (given the extensive factual background), I am going to break the Court's opinion into the three main points:

Hostile Work Environment Claim

Readers will likely recall that to prevail on a hostile work environment claim, it must be established 1) that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the work environment; and 2) that a specific basis exists for imputing the conduct that created the hostile work environment to the employer.  To be actionable, the alleged harassing conduct must be severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that "would reasonably be perceived...as hostile or abusive."  As a result, "[A] work environment's hostility should be assessed based on the totality of the circumstances."  The Court pointed out that while the complained of conduct must be more than episodic, "[t]here is neither a threshold magic number of harassing incidents...nor a number of incidents below which a plaintiff fails...".

Utitec argued that the alleged harassment was not objectively severe nor pervasive because the relevant incidents were "few and far between, and occurred sporadically."  As for Dostaler's attempting to feed Echevarria, brushing up against her, touching her, etc, Utitec characterized this conduct as "relatively minimal and unobtrusive."  The Court disagreed and pointed out that a reasonable jury could conclude that these incidents constituted an unwanted invasion of Echevarria's physical space and were highly personal and intimidating.

Retaliation Claim

Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose employment discrimination or submit or support a complaint of employment discrimination.  Under McDonnell Douglas, the burden shifting framework is used:  the employee must establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer must then articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, and then it is the employee's burden to show the retaliation was a substantial reason for the adverse employment action.

The Court was unconvinced by Utitce's assertion that the workstation move of Echevarria was not an adverse employment action.  It was reasonable to hold that a women, whose co-worker subject her to an unwanted invasion of personal space, would want to limit her interactions with the harasser.  However, Utitec had established a legitimate business need to move Echevarria during the renovation to a place closer to her supervisor.  As for Echevarria's claim that the promotion actually offered less job opportunities (and therefore was more of a demotion), the Court held there was insufficient evidence to establish whether this new opportunity was equivalent, less desirable, etc. than the position she held.

Negligent/Reckless Supervision

To prevail on a negligent supervision claim, a plaintiff must establish she suffered an injury "due to the defendant's failure to supervise an employee whom the defendant had a duty to supervise."  To prevail on a reckless supervision claim, the plaintiff must show "supervision of an employee with reckless indifference or disregard of the right of others."  Echevarria argued that Utitec was reckless and negligent when it failed to take remedial action against Dostaler both prior to and after the happy hour.  

However, the District Court held that material issues of fact exist as to Utitec's knowledge of Dostaler's propensity for harassing Echevarria prior to the happy hour as well as to the severity and impropriety of Dostaler's conduct at the happy hour.  A reasonable jury could find that Harlow's decision not to conduct an investigation or discipline Dostaler immediately was either unreasonable or displayed a conscious disregard for the risk Dostaler would harass Echevarria again.  With that being said, the Court held that it was unconvinced that the decision to delay reprimanding Dostaler was either negligent or reckless.

Judgment:  The District Court denied the employer and employee's motions for summary judgment on the grounds that sufficient fact issues existed as to whether the employer allowed a hostile work environment to exist when a co-worker allegedly harassed the employee prior to, during, and after a happy hour, the employer delayed reprimanding the co-worker for his alleged conduct, and then subsequently engaged in retaliation against the employee for complaining about the alleged harassment, such that the employee's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claim would proceed to trial.

The Takeaway:  This was one of the lengthier opinions I have come across as of late.  With that being said, the issue over whether alleged harassment in the workplace that subsequently spills over into a happy hour among co-workers creates potential liability for the employer, was a topic I wanted to highlight for readers.  While the Court denied the cross motions for summary judgment, there certainly appears there could be enough evidence for Echevarria to establish her claim.  As always, however, let's see how this one plays out at trial...you never know what can happen during the course of depositions, discovery, or when a witness is testifying on the stand...

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Bryant

Date:  September 28, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/EchevarriaUtitec092817.pdf