Carter v. America Online, Inc.
208 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23906, 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 757 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for coworker harassment under Title VII when it has established a reasonable, publicized anti-harassment policy and the complaining employee fails to follow the policy's specific reporting procedures, thereby failing to put the employer on notice.
Facts:
- From 1995 to 1998, Plaintiff was employed by America Online, Inc. ('AOL') as a tech mail representative under the immediate supervision of James McNeal.
- Beginning in 1997, a coworker, Teddy Fortin, subjected Plaintiff to a campaign of sexual harassment, including using vulgar language, requesting sexual favors, unwanted physical touching, and making a physical threat.
- Plaintiff complained about Fortin's conduct to her supervisor, McNeal, who was dismissive and told her not to 'make waves.'
- AOL had a formal anti-harassment policy, which Plaintiff had read and understood, requiring employees to report harassment to their supervisor (or a higher manager) AND the Human Resources department.
- Plaintiff did not report Fortin's harassment to AOL's Human Resources department until a meeting with HR Manager Doug Beamon on September 7, 1998.
- AOL terminated Fortin's employment the day after Plaintiff officially reported the harassment to the Human Resources department.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, America Online, Inc., in the United States District Court.
- The complaint included claims for sexual harassment under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), negligent retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The court previously granted a motion to dismiss the negligent retention count.
- Defendant AOL then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining counts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer have notice of coworker sexual harassment, rendering it vicariously liable under Title VII, when the employee complains to a low-level supervisor but fails to follow the company's established anti-harassment policy which requires reporting to both the supervisor and the Human Resources department?
Opinions:
Majority - Schlesinger, District Judge
No. An employer does not have legally sufficient notice of coworker harassment and cannot be held liable when the employee fails to utilize the company’s reasonable and established reporting procedures. To establish employer liability for coworker harassment, a plaintiff must show the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action. When an employer has a clear and published policy designating specific channels for complaints, following those procedures is the method by which an employee puts the employer on notice. Here, AOL's policy reasonably required a dual reporting mechanism: notifying a supervisor and the Human Resources department. Plaintiff's complaints to her low-level supervisor, McNeal, were insufficient to satisfy the policy's requirements and did not constitute notice to the company. Once Plaintiff did complain to Human Resources in September 1998, AOL took prompt and effective remedial action by terminating the harasser's employment almost immediately. Because AOL was not on notice prior to September 1998 and acted decisively once it was, it cannot be held liable for the harassment.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the critical role of corporate anti-harassment policies as a shield against liability for coworker harassment. It establishes that the creation and dissemination of a reasonable reporting procedure shifts the burden to the employee to use that procedure to put the employer on notice. The ruling suggests that merely complaining to a direct, low-level supervisor may be insufficient if a policy requires reporting to a higher authority or a specific department like HR. This decision incentivizes employers to create robust, clear reporting mechanisms and places a strict obligation on employees to follow them, potentially limiting employer liability in cases where prescribed channels are ignored.
