Renee Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc.
99 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,347, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11317, 791 F.3d 488 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable for a hostile work environment created by an anonymous actor if the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end it. The severity and anonymous nature of the harassment can heighten the employer's duty to respond.
Facts:
- Renee Pryor, an African-American flight attendant for United Airlines, worked at Dulles International Airport.
- Prior to the main incidents, United managers were aware of racially charged rumors about black flight attendants and of racist flyers stating 'No niggers need apply' posted in the employee break room.
- In January 2011, Pryor discovered a note in her company mailbox, located in a secure area, which was a 'Nigger Tag — Federal Nigger Hunting License' purporting to license the holder to 'hunt & kill NIGGERS' and included a drawing of a person being lynched.
- Pryor immediately reported the threat to her supervisor, who told her there was 'not much' United could do.
- On October 21, 2011, Pryor received a nearly identical racist death threat in her mailbox.
- During this same time, at least nine other senior African-American flight attendants also received the same racist threat in their mailboxes.
- Fearing for her safety, Pryor ultimately relocated to work out of a different airport in Houston.
Procedural Posture:
- Renee Pryor filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received a right-to-sue letter.
- Pryor filed suit against United Airlines in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging racial discrimination and a hostile work environment.
- United Airlines moved for summary judgment on all counts.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines, concluding that while a hostile work environment existed, the harassing conduct could not be legally imputed to the company.
- Pryor, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with United Airlines as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer liable for a hostile work environment created by an anonymous actor if it fails to take prompt and effective action reasonably calculated to end the harassment after becoming aware of it?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Gregory
Yes, an employer is liable for a hostile work environment created by an anonymous actor if its response is not reasonably calculated to end the harassment. The court first held that the racist death threats were so 'extremely serious' that they were sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment on their own, even if not pervasive. The court then addressed employer liability, clarifying that an employer is liable for co-worker or third-party harassment if it knew of the conduct and 'failed to take effective action to stop it.' The anonymity of the harasser does not lessen this standard; in fact, the severity of the anonymous threat may heighten the employer's duty to respond. A reasonable jury could find United's response to the first threat was inadequate because it was neither prompt nor reasonably calculated to end the harassment. United failed to call the police, follow its own internal harassment policy, conduct a meaningful investigation (e.g., interviewing co-workers or performing forensic analysis), install security measures promptly, or even inform Pryor when it closed its initial investigation. The court rejected the lower court's reasoning that the plaintiff must show a better investigation would have identified the perpetrator; the legal test is whether the employer's chosen response was reasonable, not whether it was guaranteed to be successful.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that an employer's duty to respond to harassment is not diminished when the perpetrator is anonymous; in fact, a severe, anonymous threat may require a more robust response. It establishes that a passive or perfunctory investigation into a serious threat, such as a racist death threat, is legally insufficient. The ruling is significant for plaintiffs because it affirms that they do not need to prove that a better investigation would have been successful, only that the employer's actual response was not reasonably calculated to end the harassment, thus strengthening claims against employers who fail to take such threats seriously.
