The EEOC Litigation Review - 2023 - Report - Page 32
create a hostile work environment and that it was the only isolated incident attributed to
the defendant itself. The court determined that the EEOC failed to state a claim for
hostile work environment because the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive.
The court noted that the EEOC failed to allege that the defendant knew or should have
known about the subsequent alleged co-worker harassment, and, even if it was, the
complained-of conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to give rise to a hostile
work environment claim. Id. at *9. As to the EEOC’s allegation that the harassment
experienced by Sellers culminated in his constructive discharge, the court ruled that
since the EEOC failed to state a claim for a hostile work environment, it also failed to
state a claim for constructive discharge. For these reasons, the court granted
Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In EEOC v. SDI Of Mineola, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163289 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17,
2022), the Commission filed an action on behalf of several female claimants alleging
that the defendant subjected them to harassment and discrimination on the basis of
their sex in violation of Title VII. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court deny the motion. The EEOC
asserted that the defendant subjected female employees to sexual harassment, which
ultimately lead to several claimants’ constructive discharge. The EEOC contended that
Leston Juarez (LJ), the former co-manager of the defendant, sexually harassed the
claimants. As to the EEOC’s prima facie claim for hostile work environment, the
defendant argued that LJ’s behavior was not severe or pervasive and that the
complained of conduct was not based on sex. Id. at *3. The defendant further
contended that it maintained a written harassment policy that claimants failed to utilize
and that it was unaware of any alleged harassment or discrimination. Finally, the
defendant argued that the two claimants who resigned from their employment could not
establish that they were constructively discharged. The EEOC stated that LJ’s
harassment was based on the claimants’ sex (female) because he primarily targeted
women and that the conduct was frequent, severe, threatening, and altered the work
environment. Id. at *4-5. The Magistrate Judge noted that whether the claimants
reasonably felt compelled to quit was a fact question for the jury and thus the defendant
was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue. Further, the Magistrate Judge
recognized that the defendant had an anti-harassment policy in place but determined
that there was still a genuine question of material fact as to whether the defendant
exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing
behavior. Id. at *22. The Magistrate Judge also found that the EEOC sufficiently
adduced summary judgment evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether the
defendant properly implemented the harassment policy. Finally, the defendant asserted
that it could not have acted with malice or reckless indifference when no owner or
member of upper management had knowledge of the alleged discriminatory conduct.
The Magistrate Judge rejected this argument. It held that a reasonable jury could infer
that the defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk and violation of each claimants’
rights under Title VII. Id. at *37. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ruled that because
there existed genuine issues of fact, the defendant was not entitled to summary
judgment on the issue of punitive damages. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge
recommended denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
32
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
