Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc.
110 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 271, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18447, 621 F.3d 991 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is liable for a co-worker's sexual harassment under Title VII if it knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. A relentless campaign of unwelcome advances can be sufficiently pervasive to create an abusive working environment, even if the individual acts are not severely hostile.
Facts:
- Rudolpho Lamas, a recent widower, worked for Prospect Airport Services, Inc.
- Beginning in the fall of 2002, a married female co-worker, Sylvia Munoz, began making unwanted sexual overtures to Lamas through notes and comments.
- Lamas repeatedly and clearly told Munoz he was not interested and reported her conduct to multiple supervisors.
- Munoz's advances escalated over six months to include an explicit note describing sexual fantasies, a suggestive photograph, daily suggestive gestures like simulating fellatio, and recruiting other co-workers to pressure Lamas.
- Lamas's supervisors and managers were aware of the ongoing conduct but failed to take effective action; one manager told Munoz to stop but did nothing when she continued, and another dismissed the harassment as a 'joke' and told Lamas to sing 'I'm too sexy for my shirt.'
- Other co-workers began mocking Lamas, suggesting he was homosexual for rejecting Munoz.
- The stress from the constant harassment caused Lamas's job performance to decline, leading to his demotion and eventual termination by Prospect.
Procedural Posture:
- Rudolpho Lamas filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC determined that Lamas was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment.
- The EEOC, as plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Prospect Airport Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- Prospect moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Prospect, finding as a matter of law that the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment.
- The EEOC, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 a persistent, multi-month campaign of unwelcome sexual advances by a female co-worker against a male employee, combined with the employer's ineffectual response, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a hostile work environment existed in violation of Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - Kleinfeld
Yes. A relentless campaign of unwelcome sexual advances by a female coworker against a male coworker, which the employer fails to stop, can be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment under Title VII. The court reasoned that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find all elements of a hostile work environment claim were met. First, the conduct was clearly of a sexual nature. Second, the welcomeness of sexual advances is inherently subjective to the victim, and Lamas repeatedly and clearly communicated that the advances were unwelcome; stereotypes about how men might react are irrelevant. Third, while the individual acts were not physically severe, their relentless pervasiveness over six months, combined with the humiliation from other coworkers, could be found by a jury to have altered the conditions of his employment and created an abusive environment. Finally, Prospect's liability could be established because Lamas complained to multiple managers who knew the harassment was ongoing but failed to take effective remedial action, instead trivializing his complaints.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its clear application of Title VII's sexual harassment protections to a male victim and female harasser, rejecting gender-based stereotypes in the 'welcomeness' analysis. It emphasizes that the standard for whether advances are welcome is subjective to the victim, not based on assumptions about a 'reasonable man.' The decision also reinforces the principle that the 'severe or pervasive' standard is a sliding scale; conduct that is not particularly severe can become actionable if it is frequent and persistent. Finally, it serves as a strong reminder to employers that liability attaches not just for failing to respond to a complaint, but for failing to respond effectively and stop the harassment.
