U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE 19.1 Sexual Harassment
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders
542 U.S. 129, 124 S.Ct. 2342, 159 L.Ed.2d 204,Web 2004 U.S. Lexis 4176 (2004)
Supreme Court of the United States
“Essentially, Suders presents a ‘worse case’ harassment scenario, harassment ratcheted up to the breaking point.” —Justice Ginsburg
Facts:
The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) hired Nancy Drew Suders as a police communications operator for the McConnellsburg barracks. Suders’s supervisors were Sergeant Eric D. Easton, station commander at the McConnellsburg barracks, Patrol Corporal William D.
Baker, and Corporal Eric B. Prendergast. Those three supervisors subjected Suders to a continuous barrage of sexual harassment that ceased only when she resigned from the force. Easton would bring up the subject of people having sex with animals each time Suders entered his office. He told Prendergast, in front of Suders, that young girls should be given instruction in how to gratify men with oral sex. Easton also would sit down near Suders, wearing Spandex shorts, and spread his legs apart. Baker repeatedly made an obscene gesture in Suders’s presence that involved grabbing his genitals and shouting out a vulgar comment inviting oral sex. Baker made this gesture as many as 5 to 10 times per night throughout Suders’s employment at the barracks. Further, Baker would rub his rear end in front of her and remark “I have a nice ass, don’t I?” Five months after being hired, Suders contacted Virginia Smith-Elliot, PSP’s equal opportunity officer, stating that she was being harassed at work and was afraid. Smith-Elliot’s response appeared to Suders to be insensitive and unhelpful.Two days later, Suders resigned from the force. Suders sued PSP, alleging that she had been subject to sexual harassment and constructively discharged and forced to resign. The U.S. District Court held that although the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude that Suders’s supervisors had engaged in sexual harassment, PSP was not vicariously liable for the supervisors’ conduct. The U.S. District Court granted PSP’s motion for summary judgment. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial on the merits against PSP. PSP appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue:
Can an employer be held vicariously liable when the sexual harassment conduct of its employees is so severe that the victim of the harassment resigns?
Language of the U.S. Supreme Court
To establish hostile work environment, plaintiffs like Suders must show harassing behavior sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of their employment.
The very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their gender offends Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality. Beyond that, we hold, to establish “constructive discharge,” the plaintiff must make a further showing: She must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may defend against such a claim by showing both (1) that it had installed a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of sexual harassment, and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of that employer-provided preventive or remedial apparatus. This affirmative defense will not be available to the employer, however, if the plaintiff quits in reasonable response to an employersanctioned adverse action officially changing her employment status or situation, for example, a humiliating demotion, extreme cut in pay, or transfer to a position in which she would face unbearable working conditions. Essentially, Suders presents a “worse case” harassment scenario, harassment ratcheted up to the breaking point. (Case continues)
Same-Sex Discrimination:
For years, it was unclear whether same-sex sexual harassment and same-sex discrimination in employment were actionable under Title VII. In Omcale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Incorporated,9 the U.S. Supreme Court held that same-sex harassment violates Title VII. Many state and local government antidiscrimination laws outlaw same-sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Example Two members of the same gender work for an employer. One is the supervisor of the other. If the supervisor engages in sexual harassment of the employee of the same gender, this would violate Title VII.
Employer’s Defense to a Charge of Sexual Harassment
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an employer is not strictly liable for sexual harassment.
10 The Supreme Court held that an employer may raise an affirmative defense against liability by proving two elements: (1) The employer exercised reasonable care to prevent, and promptly correct, any sexual harassing behavior and (2) the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm.
The defendant employer has the burden of proving this affirmative defense. In determining whether the defense has been proven, a court must consider (1) whether the employer has an anti-harassment policy, (2) whether the employer had a complaint mechanism in place, (3) whether employees were informed of the anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure, and (4) other factors that the court deems relevant.
Harassment so intolerable as to cause a resignation may be effected through co-worker conduct, unofficial supervisory conduct, or official company acts. Unlike an actual termination, which is always effected through an official act of the company, a constructive discharge need not be.
A constructive discharge involves both an employee’s decision to leave and precipitating conduct.
Decision:
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals that Suders’s case presented genuine issues of material fact concerning Suders’s hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
What are the remedies for an EEOC violation intellectual property. What is a patent? How long does it last?
What is a copyright? How long does it last?
Title VII prohibits two major forms of employment discrimination: disparate-treatment discrimination and disparate-impact discrimination. Can you identify what each of these is?
Title VII recognizes several defenses to a charge of discrimination under Title VII. What are they?
What is vicarious liability, as discussed in this case? What is constructive discharge?