42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) presumptively attributes supervisors’ discriminatory harassment to the employer when the employer does not rebut that presumption.

McCoy v. City of New York · filed 2001-02-14(a)(1)

Because each of the individual defendants named in the caption were supervisors, the Parks Department is presumptively responsible for any discrimination they may have manifested against McCoy. Defendants have failed to offer evidence to rebut this presumption, and the court, accordingly, imputes the conduct of plaintiffs individual supervisors to the Parks Department.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows an employer to defeat a hostile work environment claim when it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to use available remedies.

Swingle v. Henderson · filed 2001-05-08(a)

As Henderson can make out both elements of the affirmative defense to respon-deat superior liability enounced in Ellerth, Swingle’s claim of a hostile work environment must fail on its merits.

Section 2000e-2 permits employer liability for coworker sexual harassment when the employer fails to take prompt, effective action to remedy it.

Burns v. Mayer · filed 2001-11-30

Defendant Harrah’s can be held liable for the actions of its employees because it has not demonstrated as a matter of law that it took “prompt, effective action” to remedy inappropriate behavior at the Garden Café.

Section 2000e-2 permits employer liability for coworker sexual harassment when the employer fails to take prompt, effective action to stop it.

Switzer v. Rivera · filed 2001-11-30

Defendant Harrah’s can be held liable for the actions of its employees because it has not demonstrated as a matter of law that it took “prompt, effective action” to remedy inappropriate behavior at the Garden Café.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employer that learns of coworker sexual harassment to take prompt corrective action reasonably calculated to end it.

Melody S. Swenson v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States of America · filed 2001-11-30(a)(1)

Notice of the sexually harassing conduct triggers an employer’s duty to take prompt corrective action that is “reasonably calculated to end the harassment.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make an employer liable for coworker sexual harassment when the employee has a way to report it, fails to do so, and the employer has no reason to know it is happening.

Hall, Louvenia v. Bodine Electric Co · filed 2002-01-08(a)(1)

An employer is not liable for co-employee sexual harassment when the victim, having a mechanism by which to report the harassment, fails to do so, and where the record is devoid of any credible evidence that the employer should have known that the harassment was taking place.

Section 2000e-2 can make an employer liable for sexual harassment by its agents or employees in certain circumstances.

McPherson v. HCA-HEALTHONE, LLC. · filed 2002-05-09(a)(1)

In certain circumstances, an employer may be found to be liable for the actions of its agents, such as supervisors, as well as for the actions of its employees.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for a nonemployee’s sexual harassment when the employer knew or should have known of it and failed to take prompt, appropriate action.

Gliatta v. Tectum, Inc. · filed 2002-07-08(a)(1)

Employers are liable for the actions of nonemployees only when they knew or should have known of the offensive behavior and failed to take immediate and appropriate action. ... Based on this evidence, it is clear that Tectum took appropriate action in a timely fashion upon receiving actual notice of the harassment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an employer to defend against a supervisor harassment claim when no tangible employment action occurred, the employer took reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and the employee unreasonably failed to use available complaint procedures.

Arnold v. Yale New Haven Hospital · filed 2002-07-12(a)(1)

Further, Yale-New Haven has satisfied its burden to show that Arnold unreasonably failed to take advantage of Yale New-Haven’s complaint procedures. ... Therefore, both prongs of the affirmative defense are satisfied.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an employer to avoid liability for a supervisor’s hostile work environment harassment when it reasonably prevents and corrects harassment and the employee unreasonably fails to use available corrective opportunities.

Reed v. MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. · filed 2002-11-18(a)(1)

A defendant employer may, however, avoid vicarious liability for the misconduct of a supervisor in a Title VII hostile environment case by establishing that it is entitled to the affirmative defense set forth in the Supreme Court’s holdings in Ellerth and Faragher. The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care-to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. ... Defendants, therefore, cannot be liable for the sexual harassment caused by one of its employees as a matter of law.

An employer can avoid vicarious liability for a supervisor’s hostile work environment harassment if it reasonably prevents and corrects harassment and the employee unreasonably fails to use available remedies, provided no tangible employment action occurred.

Conatzer v. Medical Professional Building Services, Inc. · filed 2003-03-21(a)(1)

Because defendant MPBS has satisfied both prongs of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, it cannot be held vicariously liable for the sexual harassment caused by one of its employees as a matter of law.

A corporation is directly liable under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) for sexual harassment committed by its president.

Cortes v. Valle · filed 2003-03-25(a)(1)

Where the acts alleged to constitute sexual harassment are committed by the president of a corporation, such acts are directly imputable to the corporation.

An employer is liable for a coworker’s hostile work environment harassment if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, adequate action to stop it.

Sutton v. Zemex Corp. · filed 2003-03-28(a)(1)

Because Mr. Carson was Plaintiffs co-worker and not her supervisor, in order for the Court to impute liability for his conduct to Defendant, Plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to show that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassing behavior and failed to take prompt and adequate action to stop it.

When supervisor harassment causes no tangible employment action, an employer may raise the Faragher/Ellerth defense but must prove reasonable efforts to prevent and correct harassment and an employee’s unreasonable failure to use those opportunities.

Homesley v. Freightliner Corp. · filed 2003-04-22(a)(1)

We conclude that Freightliner cannot show that it was entitled, as a matter of law, to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

In a supervisor sexual harassment claim, an employer asserting the Ellerth/Faragher defense must show that the employee unreasonably failed to use available procedures to prevent or correct the harassment.

Hardy, Rena v. Chicago · filed 2003-05-08(a)(1)

However, to satisfy the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, the University must also show that Hardy unrea- sonably failed to avail herself of the University’s proce- dures. The University argues that Hardy delayed in using the Board’s complaint procedures and when she finally did so, she thwarted virtually every opportunity for those procedures to be effective, and the district court agreed. We find, however, that there is a question of material fact on this issue that precludes summary judg- ... ment.

Under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), a credible threat of retaliation can make an employee’s failure to report a supervisor’s harassment reasonable, leaving the employer’s affirmative defense for a jury to decide.

Reed v. MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. · filed 2003-06-19(a)(1)

Despite our respect for the district court's judgment, we cannot say that a jury would be acting irrationally if (as the record stands) it resolved factual doubts in her favor and concluded that Reed was actually cowed by the threat and reasonably so.

An employer may avoid liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when it reasonably prevents and corrects harassment, the employee unreasonably fails to use available complaint procedures, and no tangible employment action occurred.

Dennis v. Nevada · filed 2003-09-11(a)(1)

This, coupled with her complete failure to formally report the alleged harassment makes the argument that Dennis’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances meritless. Accordingly, the Court finds that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the Defendant on the issue of the affirmative defense, and summary judgment is granted in favor of the Defendant and against Dennis as to her hostile work environment claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a basis to impute co-worker harassment to the employer for a hostile work environment claim.

Gibson v. Crucible Materials Corp. · filed 2003-11-07(a)(1)

For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support a basis for imputing the conduct of her co-workers to Defendants. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to this aspect of Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim.

An employer may be liable for a hostile work environment created by a coworker if it was negligent in discovering or remedying the harassment.

Hrobowski, William R v. Worthington Steel Co · filed 2004-02-17(a)(1)

Conversely, the employer may be found liable for a hostile work environment created by an em- ployee who was not the plaintiff’s supervisor only where the plaintiff proves that the employer has “been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.” Id.

An employer satisfies its duty to address coworker harassment when it responds promptly and reasonably under the circumstances.

Wyninger, Joella v. New Venture Gear · filed 2004-03-19(a)(1)

NVG satisfied its obligation to maintain a harassment- free work environment under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes an employer liable when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action against an employee for refusing sexual advances, even if the employee did not use the employer’s harassment reporting system.

Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants · filed 2004-04-27(a)(1)

An employer is liable under Title VII if it (even unknowingly) permits a supervisor to take a tangible employment action against an employee because she refused to give in to his sexual overtures. That liability exists regardless of whether the employee took advantage of any employer-provided system for reporting harassment.

An employer is not liable for a sexually hostile work environment under a negligence theory when its response to reported harassment was adequate.

Rennard v. Woodworker's Supply, Inc. · filed 2004-06-09(a)(1)

We conclude that plaintiff failed to put forth sufficient evidence to establish that WSI responded inadequately to her reports about Rogers.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an affirmative defense to employer liability for a single incident of supervisor sexual harassment.

McCurdy v. AR State Police · filed 2004-07-23(a)(1)

Regardless of whether the single incident involving McCurdy and Sergeant Hall meets the high threshold for actionable harm, we conclude the ASP’s assertion of an affirmative defense shields it from liability.

An employer may invoke an affirmative defense to liability under § 2000e-2(a)(1) for a single incident of supervisor sexual harassment.

McCurdy v. Arkansas State Police, State of Arkansas · filed 2004-09-07(a)(1)

Regardless of whether the single incident involving McCurdy and Sergeant Hall meets the high threshold for actionable harm, we conclude the ASP's assertion of an affirmative defense shields it from liability.

Section 2000e-2 does not make an employer liable for sexual harassment when it promptly remedies reported harassment and the employee unreasonably fails to use available corrective procedures.

Nguyen v. Baker Hughes, Inc. · filed 2004-11-09

The court found that Baker Hughes took prompt remedial action after Plaintiff complained of harassment, as is required by Title VII. See Wyatt v. Hunt Plywood Co., 297 F.3d 405, 409-10 (5th Cir. 2002). Further, it noted that Plaintiff failed to complain about the other abuse she allegedly suffered, thus “unreasonably fail[ing] to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Id. at 410. We agree with the district court findings. For these reasons, Baker Hughes cannot be held liable for any sexually harassing conduct suffered by Plaintiff.

An employer may invoke the Faragher/Ellerth defense to a supervisor sexual harassment claim when no tangible adverse employment action occurred.

V. City of Jackson Municipal School District · filed 2005-02-16(a)(1)

Further, the District is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs claim of sexual harassment. Casher never targeted plaintiff for any tangible adverse employment action and the District is entitled to the protection of the Faragher/Ellerth Defense.

Section 703(a) permits employer liability for workplace sexual harassment by a nonemployee without requiring the harasser to be classified as an employee.

Erickson v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2005-02-22(a)(1)

Alternately, plaintiff argues that the nature of the relationship between Spicer and defendant is irrelevant because employers can be held liable under Title VII for workplace sexual harassment perpetrated by non-employees. Because I agree with plaintiffs second argument, I conclude it is unnecessary to characterize Spicer’s relationship with defendant.

An employer may be liable under § 2000e-2(a)(1) for severe or pervasive sexual harassment by a coworker if its response after learning of the harassment was not effectively remedial.

Antonopoulos v. Zitnay · filed 2005-02-28(a)(1)

Viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court finds that reasonable jurors could disagree as to whether the corrective measures taken by defendants were effectively remedial and non-negligent. Therefore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiffs Title VII hostile work environment claims.

Section 2000e-2 permits an employer to defeat a sexual harassment claim by establishing the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense.

Benefield v. Fulton Co., GA. · filed 2005-04-29

Accordingly, Benefield failed to show that she suffered severe or pervasive harassment “because of her sex,” and Fulton County established that it was not liable for such conduct.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) addresses discrimination by an employer; a coworker’s assault alone does not establish employer discrimination.

Shafer v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc., and Alan Dill · filed 2005-08-01(a)(1)

But Title VII does not deal with coworkers’ torts. It addresses discrimination by employers. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l).

A group leader without supervisory authority or power to make decisions affecting employment terms is not a supervisor for purposes of employer liability under Title VII.

Valenti v. Triangle Circuits of Pittsburgh, Inc. · filed 2005-08-26(a)(1)

Applying these standards here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented no evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Dan Laux was her “supervisor” for purposes of Title VII employer liability. Although Laux was the Group Leader of the Image Department, he did not enjoy any supervisory authority over any employee nor did he have the authority to make any decisions affecting the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment, i.e., the authority to hire, fire, promote, demote, discipline or transfer Plaintiff.

Performance memoranda unrelated to harassment do not bar an employer from asserting the supervisor-harassment affirmative defense, even if they qualify as tangible employment actions.

Hardage v. CBS Braodcasting, Inc. · filed 2005-10-31(a)(1)

For this reason, even if we consider the memoranda as tangible employment actions in and of themselves, rather than as components of a constructive discharge, they do not bar CBS from asserting the Ellerth/Faragher defense.

An employer may assert an affirmative defense to liability for a supervisor's sexual harassment when the employee suffered no tangible employment action.

Hardage v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 2005-11-01(a)(1)

Thus, Hardage has failed to establish a material factual dispute as to whether he was constructively discharged, and he has not alleged any other "tangible employment action."

An employer may avoid liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment if it took no tangible employment action, exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and the employee unreasonably failed to use preventive or corrective opportunities.

Hardage v. CBS Broadcasting · filed 2006-01-06(a)(1)

Thus, even if we assume that Hardage was sexually harassed, CBS can avoid liability if it can show that (1) it took no “tangible employment action” against Hardage, (2) it exercised reason- able care to prevent and correct harassment, and (3) Hardage unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or correc- tive opportunities.

An employer cannot obtain summary judgment on the defense that it promptly corrected a supervisor’s sexual harassment when a jury could find its managers failed to take prompt and adequate steps to stop it.

Curran v. AMI Fireplace Co. · filed 2006-01-19(a)(1)

Considering this evidence together, we conclude a reasonable jury could find that AMI, through its managers Brown and Manzanares, did not take prompt and adequate steps to remedy Payson’s behavior.

Excessive and onerous duties assigned by a supervisor may constitute a tangible employment action in a sexual harassment claim.

Monteagudo v. Asociacion De Empleados Del Estado Libre Asociado De Puerto Rico · filed 2006-03-31(a)(1)

The circumstances surrounding the assignment of additional work duties could lead a reasonable fact-finder to conclude there was a tangible employment action. Therefore, there exists a genuine question of material fact as to whether the additional tasks assigned to Monteagudo were sufficiently excessive and onerous as to constitute a tangible employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a hostile work environment plaintiff to show harassment based on protected status and employer negligence in discovering or remedying coworker harassment.

Velez, Elliot v. City of Chicago · filed 2006-04-04(a)(1)

Plaintiffs have offered evidence that they complained to supervisors about Burns harassing them, but a successful hostile work environment claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the harassment was based on his or her protected status and that the employer was negligent in not discover- ing or remedying it.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for a sexually hostile work environment when the employer knows of ongoing harassment and responds inadequately.

Renner v. Harsco Corporation · filed 2007-01-31(a)(1)

The jury had ample evidence before it to conclude that Harsco Corporation had notice of the ongoing harassment of Ms. Renner and that its response was legally insufficient. We therefore find no error in the district court’s denial of Harsco Corporation’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Title VII liability.

An employer may be liable for coworker sexual harassment if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to stop it; reasonable complaint procedures bear on whether it had constructive knowledge.

Takacs v. Fiore · filed 2007-02-08(a)(1)

The test for imputability is thus a negligence standard, with liability attaching only if the employer “knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take effective action to stop it.” ... Absent any facts suggesting that the procedures for registering complaints were not reasonable, there are no genuine issues of material fact, and summary judgment for Getintegrated will be granted.

Section 2000e-2 permits employer liability for coworker sexual harassment when the employer negligently responds to a complaint received by a supervisor.

Bombaci, Karen v. Journal Comm Publ Gr · filed 2007-04-10

Under these facts, a jury reasonably could find that JCPG acted negligently.

An employer is liable for coworker sexual harassment only if it knew of the harassment and failed to respond reasonably.

Bernier v. Morningstar, Inc. · filed 2007-07-17(a)(1)

Instead, where, as here, plaintiff attempts to hold the employer liable for the actions of a co-worker, “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the employer knew of the problem (usually though not always this requires the employee to show that a complaint was made) and that the employer did not act reasonably to equalize working conditions once it had knowledge.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an employer to assert an affirmative defense to supervisor sexual harassment when no tangible employment action is alleged.

Weger v. City of Ladue · filed 2007-09-13(a)(1)

Because the hostile work environment sexual harassment that Plaintiffs were subjected to in this case was perpetrated by a supervisor, the City is vicariously liable for the harassment unless it demonstrates its entitlement to the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense, which is potentially applicable in situations where, as here, no tangible employment action is alleged.

Section 2000e-2 allows an employer to raise an affirmative defense to liability for a supervisor’s hostile work environment when no tangible employment action occurred, but evidence about the employer’s response and the employee’s use of corrective measures can preclude summary judgment.

Gledhill v. University of Massachusetts Medical School · filed 2007-09-17

This evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Gledhill, could negate the University’s affirmative defense to Title VII liability.

An employer may avoid Title VII liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when the evidence supports its reasonable efforts to prevent and correct harassment and the employee’s unreasonable failure to use available complaint procedures.

Schmidt v. Medicalodges, Inc. · filed 2007-11-08(a)(1)

The Court first rejects plaintiffs argument that the evidence overwhelmingly established that defendant did not act with reasonable care with respect to sexual harassment by Mr. Garbín. ... The Court also rejects plaintiffs argument that the evidence overwhelmingly established that plaintiff did not act unreasonably in failing to complain about sexual harassment by Mr. Garbín. ... The evidence was not so overwhelming in favor of plaintiff that a new trial is warranted, and plaintiffs motion is therefore denied.

Section 2000e-2 requires an employer to respond properly to later reports of coworker sexual harassment even if its initial response was adequate.

Engel v. Rapid City School District · filed 2007-11-09

That an employer responds adequately to an initial report of sexual harassment, however, does not discharge the employer’s responsibility to respond properly to subsequent reports of offending conduct by the harasser.

An employer can satisfy the corrective part of the supervisor harassment defense by promptly investigating reported harassment and offering measures to stop it.

Brenneman v. Famous Dave's of America, Inc. · filed 2007-11-16(a)(1)

Additionally, Famous Dave’s meets the correction prong. When the harassment was reported, Famous Dave’s sent Schindler to investigate and stop the harassment. Moreover, Schindler attempted to work out a new schedule with Brenneman and offered to relocate her to a restaurant five miles away. Though transferring Brenneman, instead of Ryburn, is not ideal, Famous Dave’s has satisfied the correction prong.

An employer facing a pattern of coworker harassment must respond appropriately and take increasingly effective steps to end it.

Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. · filed 2008-02-19(a)(1)

A company faced with a pattern of harassment must both respond appropriately and take increasingly effective steps designed to end the harassment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for coworker harassment when the employer knew or should have known of it and failed to take prompt remedial action.

Hitchens v. Montgomery County · filed 2008-05-19(a)(1)

Therefore, because her employer did not know or have reason to know of the alleged sexual harassment, there was no opportunity for her employer to promptly remedy the situation and defendants cannot be held liable.

In a coworker harassment claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a basis for employer liability.

Guthrie v. Baker · filed 2008-09-02(a)(1)

This is not an affirmative defense, but rather the burden of the plaintiff. However, unlike in a situation involving harassment by a supervisor, in a co-worker harassment situation the issue of whether the employee failed to avail herself of “preventive opportunities” is not present.

An employer may be liable for coworker sexual harassment when its response to reported harassment is indifferent or unreasonable.

Mullins v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company · filed 2008-09-04(a)(1)

Similarly, if an employer’s response to reported coworker harassment is “indifference,” then the employer has not reacted reasonably and has thus committed an act for which liability may attach under Title VII.

An employer may be vicariously liable for a supervisor’s quid pro quo sexual harassment when the supervisor has significant control over employee discipline, even without authority to fire employees.

Howington v. Quality Restaurant Concepts, L · filed 2008-10-20(a)(1)

We believe that such unilateral authority constitutes “significant control” over personnel matters, and is thus sufficient to render QRC vicariously liable for Kirk’s actions.

An employer’s response to earlier sexual harassment complaints bears on whether it took reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment.

Maldonado v. Hospital Alejandro Otero Lopez · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

However, issues of fact remain as to whether or not the Hospital’s response to the prior charges of sexual harassment against Delgado was reasonable.

An employer is vicariously liable for a supervisor’s harassment that culminates in a tangible employment action; without such an action, the employer may assert an affirmative defense.

Pinkerton v. Colorado Department of Transportation · filed 2009-04-16(a)(1)

First, the employer is vicariously liable when “the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment act, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765. ... The undisputed facts would not lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the harassment culminated in tangible employment action.

A coworker’s knowledge of sexual harassment is not imputed to an employer merely because that coworker supervises others’ work; the coworker must have management authority or duties involving harassment.

Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products Corp. · filed 2009-06-08(a)(1)

We clarify that mere supervisory authority over the performance of work assignments by other co-workers is not, by itself, sufficient to qualify an employee for management level status.

Employer liability for sexual harassment depends on whether the harasser is a supervisor or coworker; an employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Caterpillar, Inc. · filed 2009-06-18(a)(1)

Under Title VII, different standards of employer liability apply depending on whether the alleged harasser is the victim’s supervisor or a coworker. An employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor.

An employer is liable for coworker sexual harassment if it fails to provide a reasonable way to complain or knows or should know of the harassment and fails to take prompt, appropriate remedial action.

Neely v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2009-08-10(a)(1)

Because Carter was a coworker, McDonald’s may be liable “only if the employer failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint or, alternatively, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.” ... We conclude that McDonald’s remedial measures were prompt and adequate.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows an employer to avoid liability for a supervisor’s hostile work environment harassment when there is no tangible employment action, the employer reasonably prevents and corrects harassment, and the employee unreasonably fails to use corrective opportunities.

Roby v. CWI, INC. · filed 2009-08-27(a)(1)

Because Roby cannot demonstrate that there was a constructive discharge or any other tangible employment action, CWI is entitled to raise its affirmative defense, which we conclude is dispositive of this matter. ... Consequently, CWI’s affirmative defense shields it from any liability for Schiavone’s conduct and, accordingly, Roby’s hostile work environment claim fails.

An employer is liable for coworker harassment if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.

Pamerla C. Quick v. City of Birmingham · filed 2009-09-25(a)

Finally, when the perpetrator of the harassment is a coworker rather than a supervisor, the employer is only held vicariously liable if it had actual knowledge of the harassment, or constructive knowledge due to the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment, and failed to take prompt remedial action.

Section 2000e-2(a) makes an employer liable for coworker sexual harassment if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.

Blackmon v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. · filed 2009-12-23(a)

Finally, when the perpetrator of the harassment is merely a co-employee of the victim, the employer is liable only “if it knew or should have known of the harassing conduct but failed to take prompt remedial action.” ... Wal-Mart’s termination of Pereiro was a prompt and adequate remedy.

An employer may raise an affirmative defense to a supervisor’s hostile-environment harassment when the harassment did not result in a tangible employment action.

Mink v. BARTH ELECTRIC CO., INC. · filed 2010-02-02(a)(1)

When no tangible employment action is taken against the employee in the course of the harassment, an employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability.

An employer can avoid liability for a supervisor’s hostile work environment by proving the Ellerth/Faragher defense when the harassment did not culminate in a tangible employment action.

Shabestari v. Utah Non-Profit Housing · filed 2010-05-10(a)(1)

We conclude that UNPH met its burden of proof under the Ellerth/Faragher defense and therefore summary judgment on Shabestari’s discrimination claims was proper.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for coworker sexual harassment when the employer fails to take reasonable steps to discover and remedy it.

Morales v. GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2010-05-25(a)(1)

The court finds this evidence is sufficient for the court to find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether GEO took reasonable steps to discover and rectify acts of sexual harassment by its employees towards Plaintiff.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes an employer liable for a coworker’s sexual harassment when it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective action.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc. · filed 2010-09-03(a)(1)

An employer is liable for a employee’s sexual harass- ment of a coworker if it knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective reme- dial action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make an employer liable for coworker sexual harassment when it takes prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to stop the harassment.

Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc. · filed 2010-11-17(a)(1)

Where an employer takes “prompt remedial action that is reasonably calculated to stop the harassment,” the employer is not liable under Title VII for the underlying sexual harassment.

When a supervisor creates a hostile work environment without taking a tangible employment action, the employer may defend a Title VII claim by showing reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and the employee’s unreasonable failure to use corrective opportunities.

Harris v. RAILROAD CONSTRUCTORS, INC. · filed 2010-12-07(a)(1)

However, if a supervisor created a hostile environment, but failed to take a tangible employment action against the employee, the employer may raise an affirmative defense by showing (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment, and (2) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities or to otherwise avoid harm. ... Defendant has not met its burden of establishing an affirmative defense to employer liability. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion will be denied as to Plaintiffs racial and sexual harassment claims under Title VII, the NJLAD, and § 1981.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for coworker harassment when the employer provides no reasonable avenue for complaint or knows or should know of the harassment and fails to take prompt, appropriate remedial action.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Standard Register Co. · filed 2011-03-28(a)(1)

Under such circumstances, an employer is liable for the allegedly hostile work environment only if: (1) “the employer failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint[,]” or (2) “the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.” ... The EEOC has presented no evidence suggesting that Standard Register’s actions were not reasonably calculated to prevent future harassment of Zink, and no reasonable jury could so conclude.

For coworker racial harassment, an employer’s prompt investigation and corrective steps can be adequate remedial action when reasonably calculated to prevent further harassment.

Griffin v. Harrisburg Property Services, Inc. · filed 2011-04-04(a)(1)

However, in light of Huston and Andreo-li, we believe that commencing an investigation immediately, granting Griffin’s transfer, disciplining Kimble, and instituting diversity training was adequate remedial action. Accordingly, we hold that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether HPS took adequate remedial action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows an employer to be held responsible for racial harassment by an employee who functions as a supervisor, regardless of job title.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc. · filed 2011-04-12(a)(1)

The management determination is not confined to labels but rather must be assessed in light of functions. Here Rainey clearly functioned as a supervisor. His actions are therefore attributable to Defendant.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for coworker racial harassment when the employer knows of the harassment and fails to take remedial action.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Xerxes Corp. · filed 2011-04-26(a)(1)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC, we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Xerxes had notice of the alleged racial slurs and pranks in the workplace prior to February 2006, but failed to respond with any remedial action.

A supervisor who did not operate as the State’s alter ego could not subject the State to alter-ego liability for sexual harassment.

Helm v. Kansas · filed 2011-09-07(a)(1)

We need not decide that issue to resolve this case, however, as we conclude that Helm’s argument fails for the reason that Judge Stewart did not operate as the alter ego of the State.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for sexual harassment when the employer knows harassment is reasonably probable and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Wiseman v. Autozone, Inc. · filed 2011-09-26(a)(1)

An employer is negligent, and there is a basis for liability, if it fails to take “reasonable steps to prevent harassment once informed of a reasonable probability that it will occur.” Erickson, 469 F.3d at 606. AutoZone’s liability under the Plaintiffs theory therefore depends on the resolution of three successive questions. First, was there a reasonable probability of harassment? Second, if so, was AutoZone informed of that reasonable probability? Third, if so, did AutoZone take reasonable steps to prevent that harassment from occurring? Because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the answers to the first two questions are yes, and the answer to the third question is no, summary judgment must be denied.

Under Title VII, an employer can avoid liability for a supervisor’s harassment if it takes reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment and the employee unreasonably fails to use available corrective measures.

Crawford v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2012-01-11(a)(1)

The Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense protects an employer otherwise vicariously liable for a harassing supervisor's conduct if the employer can show that (a) it exercised "reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior"; and (b) the employee "unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise." Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807; see Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765. ... Since we agree with the district court that BNSF has established both parts of the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense as a matter of law and is entitled to summary judgment on that basis, we also decline to address the merits of appellants' sexual and racial harassment claims.

Section 2000e-2 does not make an employer strictly liable for sexual harassment when the employee suffers no tangible employment action.

Kramer v. Wasatch County · filed 2012-03-09(a)(1)

Because Ms. Kramer did not suffer a tangible employment action, Wasatch County is not strictly liable for Sergeant Benson’s actions.

An employer is liable for a hostile work environment caused by a nonsupervisory coworker if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper action.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. · filed 2012-05-08(a)(1)

In addition, for claims of harassment by non-supervisory personnel, [the plaintiff] must show that [her] employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper action.

An employer is liable for sexual harassment by someone who does not supervise the employee only if the employer negligently fails to discover or remedy it.

Milligan v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University · filed 2012-07-10(a)(1)

Because Meyers was not Milligan’s supervisor, SIU can be held liable for Meyers’ harassment only if Milligan proves that SIU was “negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.”

An employer’s prompt, adequate response to reported sexual harassment can preclude liability for a hostile work environment.

Bertsch v. Overstock.com · filed 2012-07-10

We view the facts in Ms. Bertsch’s favor, and while none of the summary judgment evidence may meet the severity threshold, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the conduct was pervasive enough to find in her favor. Yet her claim still must be dismissed, because Overstock’s prompt remedial action precludes employer liability.

An employer that responds promptly and appropriately to reported coworker harassment is not liable for a hostile work environment.

Newton v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction-Toledo Correctional Institution · filed 2012-08-23(a)(1)

Based on the record, Defendant acted appropriately in investigating and responding to the alleged sexual harassment and therefore, Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim of a hostile work environment.

An employer is liable under § 2000e-2 for co-worker harassment if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.

Espinal v. National Grid NE Holdings 2, LLC · filed 2012-08-23(a)(1)

A plaintiff "must demonstrate that the employer knew or should have known about the harassment yet failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action."

An employee’s reasonable efforts to report a supervisor’s sexual harassment can defeat the employer’s Faragher-Ellerth defense even without strict compliance with its grievance procedure.

Morales-Diaz v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority · filed 2012-09-30(a)(1)

PREPA’s argument seems to rely on the premise that an employee only acts reasonably if the employee strictly follows the employer’s delineated grievance procedure. Defendant’s argument here, however, is misguided.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits employer liability for sexual harassment when the employer had actual or constructive notice and failed to respond adequately.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Spud Seller, Inc. · filed 2012-09-30(a)

To establish this liability, a plaintiff must come forward with evidence sufficient to establish that (1) the employer had actual knowledge or constructive notice of the harassment, and (2) the employer’s remedial and preventive responses to the harassment were inadequate. ... The Court finds that the evidence proffered by the EEOC and Ms. Portillo is sufficient to raise a genuine issue as to whether Spud Seller was negligent in responding to Ms. Portillo’s complaint.

An employer avoids liability for a hostile work environment created by a nonemployee when it takes prompt, appropriate remedial action after learning of the alleged harassment.

Whiting v. Labat-Anderson, Inc. · filed 2013-02-28(a)(1)

The record indicates clearly that the defendant took timely, appropriate, and reasonable action in response to the plaintiff’s allegations of harassment on August 11, 2008, as well as in response to the written statement she distributed on September 2, 2008.

An employer is liable under Title VII for a coworker’s sexual harassment if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, appropriate action.

Acevedo-Torres v. Municipality of Arecibo · filed 2013-04-23(a)(1)

Rather, as the court describes, the standard is whether Defendant knew or should have known of the harassment and whether Defendant took prompt and appropriate action. ... It is uncontested that Defendant did not know of Martinez Vargas’ prior behavior. It also cannot be reasonably contested that Defendant took swift, appropriate action to not only stop Martinez Vargas from harassing Plaintiff in the future, but also any other co-worker of the police force.

When supervisor harassment causes no tangible employment action, an employer can avoid vicarious liability by proving that it took reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use available remedies.

Crockett v. Mission Hospital, Inc. · filed 2013-05-30(a)(1)

The undisputed facts demonstrate that Mission has satisfied both elements of its affirmative defense. Mission thus cannot be held vicariously liable for Kemp’s alleged harassment of Crockett.

An employer is liable for a coworker’s racial harassment only if it was negligent in failing to prevent the harassment when the coworker lacked authority to take employment actions against the employee.

Reed v. Lincare, Inc. · filed 2013-07-30(a)(1)

Nonetheless, because Sekely did not have direct authority to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Reed, Lincare could not be liable for his actions unless it was negligent in failing to prevent his harassment.

Section 2000e-2 makes an employer liable for coworker sexual harassment when it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.

Rand v. Exeter · filed 2013-10-02

What matters is whether the employer was negligent in allowing the harassment to occur and whether it took reasonable steps to respond to the claim that harassment had occurred.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make an employer liable for coworker racial harassment when it takes reasonable measures that stop the conduct.

Pryor v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2014-04-16(a)(1)

The facts therefore compel the conclusion that defendant conducted an investigation reasonably well calculated to stop the offending conduct.

An employer may be liable for a subordinate’s sexual harassment of a supervisor when it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to respond, unless the supervisor had the ability to stop it and failed to do so.

Lyles v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2014-08-27(a)(1)

But the record is unclear as to what particular incidents Ms. Lyles reported and when, and there are too many factual disputes on the record regarding Ms. Lyles’s “ability to stop the harassment” as a whole—either by taking action herself, or reporting to her supervisors—for the Court to grant the District summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for national origin harassment by coworkers when the employer knew or should have known about it and failed to respond promptly.

De Los Santos Rojas v. Hospital Español De Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2015-02-10(a)(1)

Given Gradin’s and the Hospital’s knowledge of Plaintiffs reason for seeking treatment, attempts to transfer out of the seventh floor, and the history of discrimination against Plaintiffs national origin, a reasonable jury could find that the Hospital knew or should have known that the hostile work environment continued and that Defendants should have investigated or otherwise reacted to the matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated a basis for employer liability for at least some period of Plaintiffs employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows an employer to avoid liability for coworker sexual harassment if it takes steps reasonably calculated to prevent further harassment.

Park v. Pulsarlube USA, Inc. · filed 2016-06-30(a)(1)

If the employer takes remedial steps “reasonably calculated to prevent further harassment under the particular facts and circumstances of the case at the time the allegations are made,” it may avoid liability.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an employer to defeat a supervisor harassment claim when it reasonably provided corrective procedures, the employee unreasonably failed to use them, and any tangible employment action was unrelated to the harassment.

Douyon v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2016-11-07(a)(1)

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly determined that Douyon failed to show that her termination was part of Harvey’s alleged harassment. In addition, no material issue of fact exists as to whether (1) DOE exercised reasonable care and (2) Douyon unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities.

An employer is liable for non-supervisor sexual harassment only if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, appropriate corrective action.

Zeller v. Canadian National Railway Co. · filed 2016-12-22

Regardless of whether CNCB and CNR are covered “employers” under Title VII, and regardless of whether Zeller was subject to sufficiently severe and pervasive harassment, Zeller’s Title VII claims fail on the merits, because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the entities reasonably responded to Zeller’s complaints.

An employer is not negligent in remedying coworker racial harassment when it promptly stops the reported conduct from recurring.

Cable v. FCA US LLC · filed 2017-02-09

But as the district court correctly decided, FCA did not act negligently in responding to Eltzroth’s display of the voodoo doll because FCA demanded that he never bring it to work again and thereby promptly stopped this conduct from recurring.

An employer that learns of coworker sexual harassment avoids liability by taking prompt and appropriate corrective action.

Spellman v. Ohio Department of Transportation · filed 2017-03-22(a)(1)

With this standard in mind, the Court finds that ODOT acted appropriately and promptly in response to Spellman’s complaints of harassment. ... There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether ODOT took prompt and appropriate steps. Accordingly, ODOT is entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim.

An employer can avoid liability for a supervisor’s racially hostile work environment when no tangible employment action occurs, it reasonably prevents and corrects harassment, and the employee unreasonably fails to use its corrective opportunities.

John McKinney, Jr. v. G4S Government Solutions, Inc. · filed 2017-10-19(a)(1)

There is no genuine dispute of material fact that G4S is entitled to the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense because McKinney suffered no tangible employment action, G4S exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior, and McKinney unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities G4S established.

An employer’s liability for a hostile work environment caused by a co-worker is assessed under a negligence standard when the co-worker lacks authority to take tangible employment actions against the victim.

Garcia v. Recondo Technology · filed 2017-12-14(a)(1)

The district court therefore properly considered Recondo’s liability under the negligence standard applicable to harassment by a co-worker.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make an employer liable for a coworker’s sexual harassment when it promptly investigates and takes effective corrective action.

Patsalides v. City of Fort Pierce · filed 2018-02-06(a)(1)

Even if we assume that the record, when taken in a light most favorable to Patsalides, sufficiently supports a finding that the male officer’s inappropriate conduct was based on sex and that it created a hostile work environment either because it was severe or pervasive, on this record, we hold that there was no basis on which to find the City liable for the officer’s actions. After Patsalides reported the male officer’s offensive conduct, the City promptly investigated the matter.

An employer avoids liability for a coworker’s sexual harassment when it takes prompt and appropriate corrective action after receiving notice of the harassment.

Sherris v. City Colleges Chicago · filed 2018-02-21(a)(1)

Defendant’s investigation was sufficiently swift and effective to discharge defendant’s burden of taking prompt and appropriate corrective action. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim.

An employer is liable for a coworker’s hostile work environment harassment if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, appropriate corrective action.

Mack v. Aspen of D.C., Inc. · filed 2018-01-24(a)(1)

under the negligence standard,” a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the employer “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.” Curry, 195 F.3d at 660. Mack has not met that burden.

An employer is not liable for a coworker's sexual harassment when it takes prompt, appropriate measures to prevent further harassment.

Gunn v. On the Border Acquisitions, LLC · filed 2018-03-28(a)(1)

I find that these remedial measures were prompt and appropriate to prevent future harassment.

A hostile work environment claim can proceed when the complaint plausibly alleges that an employer knew or should have known about sexual harassment by a coworker or nonemployee.

Cagle v. Estes · filed 2018-08-22(a)(1)

The inference that BHN knew or should have known about the hostile work environment crosses the plausibility threshold because it is grounded in the factual allegations stated in the complaint.

An employer that promptly takes appropriate remedial action after learning of coworker harassment is not liable for that harassment under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Tribune Media Company v. · filed 2018-09-05(a)(1)

Even if this were true, WPHL discharged Schultz immediately after the interview, taking “prompt and appropriate remedial action” once it learned of his comments.

An employer is not liable under Title VII for coworker sexual harassment when it lacked prior notice and took prompt, appropriate remedial action after learning of the conduct.

Strozyk v. Phoenixville Hosp. · filed 2019-01-18

Strozyk has failed to produce evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude: (1) that, prior to her complaint to Chiolo, Jones had enough information to allow him to suspect McGrory was sexually harassing her or that McGrory's harassment of her was so pervasive and open that he must have been aware of it; or (2) that the Hospital did not provide prompt and appropriate remedial action once it learned of the conduct. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the Hospital on Strozyk's claim for sexual harassment under Title VII and the PHRA.

An employer may be liable under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) for coworker harassment when an employee with a duty to report it knows of it and the employer fails to act.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Driven Fence, Inc. · filed 2019-08-02(a)(1)

A jury could find that under these rules and expectations, Montino was required to bring disrespectful employees, including himself, to Masterson’s attention, and as a result, that Driven Fence was on constructive notice of the harassment of Samuels.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require a plaintiff alleging racial harassment by a participating supervisor to prove the employer knew or should have known of the harassment.

Jones v. Tubal-Cain Hydraulic Solutions, Inc. · filed 2020-01-03(a)(1)

Where, as here, a supervisor actually participates in the harassment, the plaintiff need not prove the fifth element.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employer that learns of coworker harassment to take reasonably appropriate corrective action.

Chaney v. Haworth, Inc. · filed 2020-03-09(a)(1)

The law requires an employer to take reasonably appropriate corrective action once it learns of harassment. Waldo, 726 F.3d at 814. Haworth’s response was reasonable given the circumstances.

An employer is not liable for a coworker’s sexual harassment when it takes prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment after learning of it.

Saunders v. Metropolitan Property · filed 2020-03-18(a)(1)

For these reasons, we conclude that there are no disputed issues of material fact concerning the investigation Metro conducted, and that the undisputed facts establish that Metro took “prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Id. Accordingly, liability for Carter’s conduct cannot be imputed to Metro.

An employer that knows of sexual harassment by someone other than a supervisor is liable under Title VII only if it fails to take prompt remedial action.

Valdez v. Miami-Dade County, Florida · filed 2020-05-04(a)(1)

Here, the undisputed facts demonstrate the County took prompt remedial action to address the harassing conduct.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) can make an employer strictly liable when a supervisor’s sexual harassment culminates in a tangible employment action.

Hooge v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2020-06-09(a)(1)

Thus, the Court finds that Hooge has met her burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a tangible employment action was taken against her for which her employers are strictly liable.

An employer cannot invoke the Faragher-Ellerth defense to a supervisor’s hostile work environment when a jury could find that the supervisor denied a promotion for discriminatory reasons.

Willis v. Cleveland County, North Carolina · filed 2020-07-01(a)(1)

Because the Plaintiff has presented a forecast of evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that she suffered a tangible employment action for discriminatory reasons, the County cannot invoke the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense to liability.

A formal grievance procedure alone does not shield an employer from liability for sexual harassment.

Mills v. Amoco Performance Products, Inc. · filed 1994-12-23(a)(1)

The Court notes here that the existence of a formal grievance procedure does not, in and of itself, insulate employers from liability for sexual harassment.

Title VII permits employer liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when the evidence supports a basis for holding the employer responsible.

Semmami v. UG2 LLC · filed 2021-03-22

A reasonable fact finder could conclude that there is a basis for employer liability under both Title VII and Chapter 151B.

An employer that promptly takes reasonable steps to stop a coworker’s sexual harassment is not liable for that harassment under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Moore v. Phoenix · filed 2021-09-28(a)(1)

When Ms. Moore reported Ms. Fitzsimmons’s misconduct in June of 2018, Phoenix acted quickly to remedy the situation. No evidence suggests that Phoenix did not take immediate action to stop the harassment as soon as the company became aware of Ms. Moore’s allegations against Ms. Fitzsimmons. Accordingly, Ms. Moore may not hold Phoenix liable for Ms. Fitzsimmons’s misconduct.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employer to respond reasonably promptly to coworker racial harassment; its response need not be perfect.

Burns v. Berry Global, Inc. · filed 2022-02-07(a)(1)

Title VII requires a reasonably prompt corrective response, not a perfect response.

An employer is liable for a co-worker’s hostile-work-environment harassment only if the harassment is causally connected to the employer’s negligence.

Caruso v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2022-03-09(a)(1)

Based upon that conclusion, Delta can be liable for Lucas’ alleged misconduct only if the purported harassment is causally connected to the employer’s negligence.

An employer may be liable for harassment by nonemployees if it fails to take corrective action reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from recurring.

Miller v. Office of the Chief Judge of Circuit Court of Cook County Official Court Reporters Office · filed 2022-03-11(a)(1)

A reasonable jury could find for Miller on the employer liability element of her claim because, viewing the facts in her favor, OCJ’s response to her complaint about Cooperman and Valenza was apathetic and not reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from recurring.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a hostile work environment claim to proceed when a jury could find that the employer’s response to harassment was ineffective.

Rippstein v. Boeing Company · filed 2022-05-13(a)(1)

Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could find that Defendant’s remedial actions were ineffective at promptly ending the harassment of Plaintiff or deterring future harassment of its employees. Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims under Title VII and ACRA.

An employer satisfies its duty to address coworker harassment by taking steps reasonably calculated to prevent future harassment, even if those steps do not prevent all contact between the employees.

Kemp v. Kickert School Bus Line, Inco · filed 2022-06-01

Employers satisfy their obligation under Title VII when they take steps reasonably calculated to prevent future harassment, even if those steps fail to prevent all contact between the employees.

Section 2000e-2 allows an employer sexual harassment claim to proceed when material facts are disputed about the harasser’s supervisory status or the employer’s response to known harassment.

Jackson v. Richard · filed 2022-08-26

This shows a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City “manifested indifference or unreasonableness” in not acting prior to October of 2019. Therefore, summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiff’s claims for sexual harassment and gender discrimination under Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02 and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2.

An employer may avoid liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment by showing reasonable care to prevent and correct it and the employee’s unreasonable failure to use available remedies.

Erica Banks v. City of Atlanta, Georgia · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1)

Thus, because the City established both prongs of its Faragher/Ellerth defense, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in its favor as to the Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not make an employer liable for coworker harassment when it promptly investigates and takes reasonable steps to prevent further harassment.

Beal v. Pacific Rail Services. LLC · filed 2022-12-20(a)

The parties do not dispute that Beal experienced unwelcome harassment, but even if he can show that the harassment was because of his race and sufficient to create a hostile work environment, Beal has failed to establish any basis for employer liability.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits employer liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when the harassment creates a hostile work environment and culminates in constructive termination.

Girardi v. Ferrari Express, Inc. · filed 2023-03-31(a)(1)

She has also alleged that the harassment ultimately culminated in her constructive termination. Therefore, this renders Ferrari Express automatically liable under Title VII, and thus also the NYSHRL.

An employer is liable for a hostile work environment created by a nonsupervisor only if it was negligent in discovering or remedying the conduct.

Mundo v. City Of Chicago · filed 2023-05-18(a)(1)

When, as in this case, a hostile work environment is claimed to have been created by a non-supervisor, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in discovering or remedying the conduct.

An employer is liable for harassment by a nonsupervisory coworker if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take corrective action.

Moon v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 2023-06-23(a)(1)

Moon has, therefore, failed to create a genuine dispute on an essential element of her claim—that ODOC knew or should have known about Tabon’s alleged harassment of Moon.

An employer may be liable for sexual harassment by a nonemployee when it negligently fails to remedy the harassment after learning of it.

Dalton v. Sweet Honey Tea, Inc. · filed 2023-11-30(a)(1)

Defendants may be liable for Eric’s harassment if they were negligent in remedying it, and Dalton’s allegations that she informed DeShazer about the harassment, but that he did nothing to address it, more than satisfy that threshold.

An employer is not liable for coworker harassment under § 2000e-2(a)(1) when it takes prompt remedial action after learning of the harassment and lacked knowledge of earlier conduct.

Johnson v. Board of Suprs of LSU · filed 2024-01-08(a)(1)

Because the record does not contain evidence to demonstrate a genuine factual dispute as to whether LSUHSC took prompt remedial action to address Johnson’s complaint about the Incident or LSUHSC’s knowledge of Schumacher’s pre-Incident behavior, we AFFIRM summary judgment on Johnson’s harassment claims.

A supervisor’s promise of a favorable employment benefit in exchange for sexual favors does not constitute a tangible employment action triggering strict employer liability under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Allen v. Salt Lake County · filed 2024-01-30(a)(1)

After reviewing the relevant cases, the court agrees with Judge Kern: Plaintiff’s acquiescence to Defendant Hartley’s demand for sexual favors in exchange for his alleged promise to falsify records on her behalf does not qualify as a “tangible employment action” that can subject Defendant County to strict vicarious liability.

An employer can avoid vicarious liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when no tangible employment action occurred and it proves both prongs of the Faragher/Ellerth defense.

Wolf v. Kum & Go L.C. · filed 2024-08-07(a)(1)

Because Kum & Go has met both prongs of the Faragher/Ellerth defense, Kum & Go cannot be vicariously liable for Mr. Geen’s alleged harassment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a causal connection between an employer's actions and coworker harassment for employer liability for a hostile work environment.

Caruso v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2024-08-21(a)(1)

Where there is no causal connection between an employer's actions and a co-worker's creation of a hostile work environment, it cannot be said that the "employer ha[s] acted for discriminatory reasons."

An employer may avoid liability for a hostile work environment by taking reasonable steps to address harassment when the employee unreasonably fails to use available corrective measures.

Fay v. City of Newburgh · filed 2024-09-12(a)(1)

Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff could establish the existence of a hostile work environment, Defendant City is entitled to summary judgment based on the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.

An employer may avoid liability for supervisor sexual harassment when it takes reasonable steps to prevent harassment and the employee unreasonably fails to use available reporting procedures, provided no tangible employment action occurred and the supervisor was not the employer’s proxy.

Woods v. Keystone RV Company · filed 2025-07-07(a)(1)

On this record, Keystone had a policy in place and Ms. Woods failed to act promptly to notify Keystone about the harassment, so there is no basis for employer liability.

An employer may be liable for its own intentional discrimination or vicariously for discrimination by its agent; a client who is not the employer’s agent does not create vicarious liability.

Bivens v. Zep, Inc. · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

To summarize, then, the employer can be held liable either directly, for its own intentional actions, or vicariously, for those of its agent. ... This understanding plays a critical role here, as the client who harassed Bivens was not Zep’s agent.

Section 2000e-2 permits employer liability for a supervisor’s harassment when the supervisor is empowered to take tangible employment actions against the employee; conclusory labels do not establish that authority.

Merritt · filed 2025-11-06(a)(1)

The plaintiff asserts that each of the individuals who allegedly engaged in conduct that was hostile or discriminatory was her supervisor for purposes of imputing vicarious liability to the Commission under Title VII. The factual allegations in the Amended Complaint fail to establish that any of those individuals was her supervisor.

An employer may be liable for coworker racial harassment when it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to act.

Jones · filed 2026-01-27(a)(1)

Because Jones alleges that he was harassed by coworkers, he must show that Fluor knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to act.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits firing an employee because she has had, intends to have, or is considering an abortion.

Turic v. Holland Hospitality, Inc. · filed 1994-01-27(a)(1)

For purposes of Title VII analysis, I see no rational distinction between an employee’s communication of the fact that she has had an abortion, that she intends to have an abortion, or that she is considering having an abortion. Discharge on the basis of either of these statements violates federal law.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits firing an employee because she is considering an abortion, whether or not she ultimately has one.

Turic v. Holland Hospitality, Inc. · filed 1994-03-08(a)(1)

For purposes of Title VII analysis, there is no rational distinction between an employee’s communication of the fact that she intends to have an abortion, she is considering having an abortion, or she has had an abortion. Logic dictates that discharge on the basis of any of these “statuses” violates the PDA.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits firing a woman because she is considering an abortion.

Turic v. Holland Hospitality, Inc., D/B/A Holiday Inn and Conference Center of Holland, Cross-Appellee · filed 1996-07-24(a)(1)

Since an employer cannot take adverse employment action against a female employee for her decision to have an abortion, it follows that the same employer also cannot take adverse employment action against a female employee for merely thinking about what she has a right to do.

Section 2000e-2(a) imposes liability for prohibited employment discrimination on employers, not individual employees.

Harris v. Kim · filed 2020-12-07(a)

Title VII provides for liability against employers — not individuals.

Section 2000e-2 imposes Title VII liability on employers, not supervisors sued in their official capacity.

Gretzula v. Camden County Technical Schools Board of Education · filed 2013-08-14

Although there is conflicting precedent, the Court holds that Plaintiff cannot bring a Title VII claim against Monillas in his official capacity. The reasoning is persuasive in the cases dismissing official capacity claims against individual defendants who are not themselves employers. Title VII provides for liability against employers, not supervisors. Naming a supervisor as a defendant in his official capacity is redundant especially when, as in this case, the employer is named as a Defendant.

Title VII claims against a public employer’s personnel cannot proceed in their individual capacities, and official-capacity claims against them are redundant when the employer is also sued.

Rhyce v. Martin · filed 2001-04-09

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Ms. Rhyce’s Title VII claims against the Fire District personnel in their individual and official capacities.

Section 2000e-2 permits claims against employers, but does not impose personal liability on employees or supervisors.

Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp. · filed 1994-09-30(a)

Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Congress could have easily provided for individual liability simply by substituting the word “person” for the word “employer” in § 2000e-2.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes an employer liable for discriminatory acts by its agents without imposing individual liability on those agents.

Schanzer v. Rutgers University · filed 1996-07-16(a)(1)

This court is persuaded, for reasons discussed herein, that discriminatory actions perpetrated by an employer’s agent generates liability for the employer-entity only.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discriminatory discharge by an employer; a supervisor is not individually liable for actions taken in a supervisory capacity.

Valle v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. · filed 1996-07-18(a)(1)

Although an “employer” as defined by Congress includes the employer’s agents, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), a manager or supervisor can never be individually liable under Title VII to pay damages for actions taken in his supervisory capacity. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Valle’s Title VII claims against Nowland in his individual capacity should be dismissed.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits employment discrimination by employers; employees and supervisors cannot be held individually liable under Title VII.

Burnett v. Tyco Corp. · filed 1996-07-19

Title VII provides that “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer” to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. ... This court has previously ruled that individual liability may not be imposed under Title VII or the THRA. ... Therefore, the Title VII and THRA claims against Defendant Phillips must be dismissed.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits workplace race discrimination by employers but does not impose Title VII liability on individual employees.

Reynolds v. Glynn County Board of Education · filed 1996-08-30(a)

Title VII suits may be brought against the employer, but not against individual employees. ... Accordingly, Reynolds’ Title VII claim against Defendants in their individual capacities is inappropriate, and, therefore, they are entitled to summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits discrimination by employers; supervisors who are not employers cannot be sued individually under Title VII.

Scarborough v. Brown Group, Inc. · filed 1996-09-25(a)

This court joins the majority and holds that Defendants Spelling and Siler cannot be sued as individuals under Title VII. There is no allegation in the complaint that they are “employers”.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not make individual employees liable for employment discrimination under Title VII.

Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Jacques Amblard · filed 1996-11-14(a)

For these reasons, as well as some of the others cited by the other circuits, we are persuaded that Congress did not intend to hold individual employees hable under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not impose individual liability for plainly delegable personnel decisions made on the employer’s behalf and for its benefit.

Thayer v. Washington County School Board · filed 1996-12-18(a)

These are normal aspects of the employment relationship and are “plainly delegable” by the employer. As such, these alleged actions are insufficient to establish individual liability under Title VII or the ADEA.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not impose individual liability on a corporation’s sole owner for employment discrimination; the owner may be liable as the employer’s agent only in an official capacity.

Manns v. the Leather Shop Inc. · filed 1997-03-07(a)(1)

Similarly, the fact that Peterson is the sole owner of the Leather Shop and retains control of its operations and decisions does not render her liable in her individual capacity under Title VII. Peterson may be held liable only in her official capacity, as an agent of the Leather Shop.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not make a supervisor individually liable for discrimination when the supervisor is not an employer under Title VII.

Garner v. Knoll Bros. Quick Marts, Inc. · filed 1997-04-04(a)

In accordance with the rationale of the Seventh Circuit this court finds that David C. Knoll is not an “employer” under Title VII and therefore is not amenable to individual suit.