Must Employers Respond To Subsequent Complaints Against The Same Sexual Harasser From Other Victims?
Having represented sexual harassment victims for more than twenty years, our sexual harassment lawyers in Marion County, Florida know that sexual harassers often prey on more than one victim in the workplace. Once one victim lodges a sexual harassment complaint, employers customarily argue they are absolved from liability for sexual harassment towards the complaining victim so long as they took prompt and effective remedial action in response to the complaint. If another victim lodges a sexual harassment complaint against the same sexual harasser in the future, employers contend that the subsequent sexual harassment complaint is irrelevant to establishing they did not take prompt and effective remedial action in response to initial sexual harassment complaint from the other victim. In other words, employers maintain that so long as they took prompt and effective remedial action in response to the initial sexual harassment complaint, the fact that the same sexual harasser harasses other victims in the future does not matter.
In this article, our sexual harassment attorneys in Marion County, Florida explain how the decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rock Tenn Company, Case No. 08-cv-3127 (E.D. Ark. 2011) illustrates that employers are obligated to respond to subsequent sexual harassment complaints against the same harasser from other victims, even if the employer took prompt and effective remedial action in response to a prior sexual harassment complaint against the same sexual harasser from a different victim.
Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
In that case, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of a former employee, a woman named Brown, of Rock Tenn Company (“Rock Tenn”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII makes sexual harassment an unlawful employment practice. To violate Title VII, sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create a hostile working environment.
The EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing and interpreting federal employment discrimination law, including Title VII. The EEOC is also authorized by federal law to bring employment discrimination lawsuits on behalf of employees, including sexual harassment cases. The EEOC alleges that Rock Tenn violated Title VII by requiring Brown to work in a sexually hostile work environment.
The EEOC alleges that a male employee at Rock Tenn’s plant, Birch, sexually harassed Brown almost daily from January 2007 to September 2007. The EEOC claims that the harassment began with Birch rubbing Brown’s ears and side, and placing his hands on her lower back, and grabbing her stomach. As time went on, according to the EEOC, Birch’s actions increased in both frequency and severity. The EEOC alleges that Birch would confront Brown when she was alone and touch her stomach or other “lower places.” On at least one occasion, the EEOC maintains, Birch used a scanner to “scan” her breasts and groin area. When she told him to stop, Birch allegedly responded, “But I like it.” On another occasion, Birch allegedly touched Brown’s breasts with a pencil as he removed the pencil from her pocket.
On September 5, 2007, Brown reported Birch’s conduct to a shift supervisor, Broyles. She told Broyles that Birch had been inappropriately touching her. In response, Broyles told Brown that Birch had the same problems with other employees. Broyles also allegedly told Brown that if he said anything to Birch, it would slow production down.
Believing that Broyes would take no action on her complaint, Brown reported the harassment to the union steward, Eoff. Later that day, Eoff asked Brown if anything had been done. When she said no, Eoff reported to the Human Resources Manager that there were sexual harassment problems that had been reported to a supervisor, but the supervisor was taking no action.
The Human Resources Manager investigated the matter by interviewing Brown, Broyles, Birch, and a list of witnesses. At the conclusion of the investigation, a decision was made to issue Birch a written reprimand. The written reprimand was issued to Birch on September 7, 2007 and stated that any further occurrences would result in termination. At this point, the Human Resources Manager considered the investigation over.
On September 19, 2007, the Human Resources Manager met with two other female employees, Wiley and Dorris, and they complained about sexual harassment from Birch that occurred after Birch’s September 7, 2007 written reprimand. This alleged conduct included Birch flipping his shirt over his groin and making sexual comments to Wiley. The Human Resources Manager took no further action after this meeting.
Must Respond To Subsequent Complaints
Rock Tenn filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Brown’s sexual harassment claim. In moving for dismissal, Rock Tenn argued that it was not liable for any sexual harassment Brown experienced because it took prompt and effective remedial action in response to Brown’s complaint against Birch by conducting an investigation and reprimanding Birch. In other words, Rock Tenn maintained that any sexual harassment by Birch towards Wiley and Dorris that occurred after it responded to Brown’s complaint by conducting an investigation and reprimanding Birch was irrelevant to establishing its liability for Birch’s alleged sexual harassment of Brown.
The trial court disagreed and denied Rock Tenn’s motion for dismissal. The trial court explained that the “problem” with Rock Tenn’s argument is that “Wiley and Dorris both complained to [the Human Resources Manager] that Birch had harassed them again after his September 7, 2007 warning.” The trial court further observed that the “record does not indicate that [the Human Resources Manager] took any steps to investigate or substantiate these claims.” Thus, the trial court concluded that it was a “question for the jury” whether the Human Resources Manager’s “failure to investigate or respond to allegations of continued sexual harassment” from Birch towards other employees after Rock Tenn responded to Brown’s complaint by conducting an investigation and reprimanding Birch was a basis for holding Rock Tenn liable for Birch’s alleged sexual harassment of Brown.
Free Consultation For Harassment Victims
One of the most significant decisions sexual harassment victims must make is employment lawyers to consult regarding their rights and remedies under employment discrimination law. As part of our commitment to helping vindicate the rights of sexual harassment victims, an experienced employment lawyer will speak with you personally and you will receive the individualized attention your case deserves. We offer free confidential case evaluations for employees, and you will not have to pay to speak with our employment attorneys regarding your rights. We are available for consultation at your convenience, including scheduling telephone consultations for evenings and weekends.
Marion County Sexual Harassment Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our sexual harassment lawyers in Marion County, Florida have fought for the rights of sexual harassment victims for more than two decades. If you have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace or have questions about your rights as a sexual harassment victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our sexual harassment lawyers in Marion County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes sexual harassment cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.