Bazemore v. Best Buy - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Facts: Erika Bazemore (“Bazemore”), who is African American, worked at a Best Buy location. One day while at work, a co-worker, Anne Creel (“Creel”), was in a break room with Bazemore and several other Best Buy employees. Creel, who is white, made a racially charged joke in Bazemore’s presence. Bazemore, upset by the joke, reported the incident to Best Buy’s corporate HR department. A few days later, Bazemore was contacted by Colleen Hayes (“Hayes”) with the HR department and told that the incident was being investigated. Approximately two weeks later, Hayes left Bazemore a voicemail and said the matter had been resolved and the case had been closed.
However, Bazemore stated that the atmosphere in the workplace remained tense. Creel remained employed at the location. Bazemore’s attempts to reach Hayes to find out what had occurred did not result in getting a call back. Bazemore subsequently filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on the grounds that she felt like she had been harassed based upon her race and sex and Best Buy had failed to take corrective action to resolve the incident. Although Best Buy disputed the complaint and stated it had issued Creel a final written warning, the EEOC issued Bazemore a right to sue letter. Bazemore proceeded to file suit against Best Buy claiming she had been harassed because of her gender and race and subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted Best Buy’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Bazemore had failed to state an actionable hostile work environment claim. Bazemore’s allegations were held to not be imputable to Best Buy as Bazemore could not establish that Best Buy knew of the complained conduct and failed to act. Bazemore subsequently appealed.
Holding: Readers will likely recall that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial or sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment for a harassed employee. To prevail on such a claim, the employee must show that she was subjected to 1) unwelcome conduct, 2) based on her race or sex, that was 3) severe or pervasive enough to make her work environment ostile or abusive, and 4) imputable to the employer.
The Court of Appeals got down to brass tacks quickly and noted that the question to address was whether Bazemore could establish the fourth element. Of note, “...the existence of unwelcome conduct, based on an employee’s race or sex, that is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, is not on its own enough to hold an employer liable.” To survive a motion to dismiss, the employee must allege sufficient facts to plausibly satisfy the imputability requirement. In order to Bazemore to impute Creel’s harassment to Best Buy, Bazemore must show that Best Buy knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to take action reasonably calculated to stop it.
In this instance, the facts established that three days after Bazemore reported Creel’s comment, Hayes indicated that Best Buy was investigating the incident. Two weeks after that, Hayes indicted that the investigation had been completed and the case closed. In fact, the evidence established that Best Buy had issued Creel a final warning before she would be terminated. This appeared to be effective in preventing any further incidents as Bazemore had not identified any further incidents by Creel. The Court of Appeals held that so long as an employer takes measures to address complained of conduct, as Best Buy had done here, those measures will not be second guessed.
Judgment: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII complaint on the grounds that the employee could not establish that the employer failed to take action when it became aware of the complained of racially charged comments by the employee’s co-worker.
The Takeaway: Now of course there are a few key things to remember here. First, the Court of Appeals is not saying that employers can bury their heads in the sand and avoid liability for discriminatory actions or comments by employees toward their coworkers. Of note, an employer might be liable if they know, or should have known, about the harassment and fail to take action reasonably calculated to stop it. As well, the Court’s opinion might have been different if the comment had not been made by a co-worker but instead by a supervisor of Bazemore. Nevertheless, this is a sound ruling from the Court and a good reminder to employers that taking decisive action and promptly investigating potentially discriminatory conduct after being made aware of it is key to defending against this type of Title VII claim.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Quattlebaum
Date: April 21, 2020
Opinion: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182196.P.pdfq
Comments
Post a Comment