Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03914/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03914-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SONYA MARSHALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAVO FOOD SERVICE, LLC,

d/b/a LITTLE CAESARS

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:12-cv-03914-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Sonya Marshall is a former employee of defendant Bravo Food 

Service, LLC, d/b/a Little Caesars. Ms. Marshall last worked for Bravo as an 

assistant manager at the company’s Center Point/Huffman location. In November 

2011, Bravo terminated Ms. Marshall’s employment. According to Bravo, Ms. 

Marhsall misappropriated company property by receiving a gift card that another 

store employee traded for pizzas and by failing to report the incident to 

management. 

Ms. Marshall attributes Bravo’s employment decision to discriminatory 

conduct. She claims that Bravo subjected her to a sexually hostile work 

FILED

 2015 Mar-31 PM 05:16

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 27
2

environment and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bravo asks the 

Court to enter judgment as a matter of law in its favor on all of Ms. Marshall’s 

claims. (Doc. 17). Having reviewed the record, and with the benefit of oral 

argument,1the Court finds that genuine issues of fact exist regarding Bravo’s 

actual or constructive notice of the harassing behavior. Therefore, Ms. Marshall’s 

hostile work environment claim will proceed to trial. Ms. Marshall’s retaliation 

claims fail because she did not engage in statutorily protected conduct. 

I. Relevant Undisputed Facts and Procedural Background2

A. Ms. Marshall’s Employment with Bravo

Bravo operates a number of Little Caesars restaurants in the Birmingham, 

Alabama area. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 2). Bravo hired Ms. Marshall on October 12, 2009 to 

work as an hourly associate (or crew member) in its Center Point/Huffman

restaurant. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 5; Doc. 26-1, p. 9). For a couple of months in 2010, Ms. 

Marshall split time between the Center Point/Huffman restaurant and the Eastlake 

restaurant. (Doc. 26-1, p. 12). At some point, Bravo promoted Ms. Marshall to an 

 

1

The Court held a hearing on Bravo’s motion on September 10, 2014. A court reporter was 

present, and a transcript is available upon request. 

2 Consistent with the summary judgment standard, the Court presents the facts in the light most 

favorable to Ms. Marshall. 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 27
3

hourly assistant manager position. (Doc. 26-1, p. 9). Ms. Marshall remained in the

assistant manager position until Bravo fired her. (Doc. 26-1, p. 9).

B. Bravo’s Management Structure 

Ramon Arias is Bravo’s president. His son, Matthew Arias, is Bravo’s Vice 

President. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7). 

Bravo generally assigns fewer than six employees to work each shift in its 

Little Caesars stores. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7). General managers oversee the operations 

of their stores and provide day-to-day supervision of employees. Hourly assistant 

managers serve as shift leaders and act as the manager on duty when the general 

manager is not in the store. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7). 

General managers do not have the authority to formally discipline assistant 

managers; to change employees’ pay; or to hire, fire, promote, or demote 

employees. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7). Ramon and Matthew Arias make the decisions to 

hire, fire, and promote Bravo employees. (Doc. 18-1, p. 4, ¶ 7). Bravo’s PreEmployment Training Handbook states that “[o]nly Ramon Arias can terminate 

your employment” at Bravo. (Doc. 18-1, p. 9, ¶ 25). 

C. Bravo’s Anti-Harassment Policy

Bravo’s Pre-Employment Training Handbook contains an anti-harassment 

policy. The policy provides: 

Bravo Food Service will not TOLERATE any form of sexual 

harassment. Sexual harassment behavior includes sexual 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 27
4

conversations, jokes, comments, inappropriate hand or body signs, 

touching . . . and activity that makes a crew member or any other 

individual feel uncomfortable. . . . Any incident of sexual 

harassment must be reported immediately to Ramon S. Arias @ (205) 

587-1841.

(Doc. 18-1, p. 8, ¶ 2) (emphasis in policy). The policy also states that employees 

should “immediately report to [their] Manager or Ramon Arias . . . [a]ny instance 

of [h]arassment or inappropriate conduct.” (Doc. 18-1, p. 8, ¶ 11). The handbook 

directs employees to a one page note on sexual harassment defining the term and 

instructing employees to “use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance 

system available.” (Doc. 18-1, p. 9).

When Ms. Marshall started working for Bravo, she remembers signing an 

acknowledgement form confirming that she read Bravo’s Pre-Employment 

Training Handbook and understood the rules and regulations contained in the 

handbook. (Doc. 18-1, p. 7; Doc. 26-1, p. 10). Bravo cannot locate the 

acknowledgment form that Ms. Marshall signed. Ms. Marshall testified that she 

does not remember reading or signing Bravo’s sexual harassment policy. (Doc. 

26-1, p. 10). 

D. Harassing Conduct

In the summer of 2010, while Ms. Marshall was working shifts at both the 

Center Point and Eastlake Little Caesars stores, Ms. Marshall met Anna Taylor at 

the Eastlake location. (Doc. 26-1, p. 14). At the time, both Ms. Marshall and Ms. 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 27
5

Taylor were assistant managers. (Doc. 26-1, p. 14). While both women were 

working in the Eastlake store, Ms. Taylor made comments to Ms. Marshall about 

her appearance. For example, Ms. Taylor said that Ms. Marshall “look[ed] nice” 

and that her “hair look[ed] pretty.” (Doc. 26-1, p. 14). Ms. Marshall did not view 

Ms. Taylor’s 2010 comments as harassment. (Doc. 26-1, p. 14). According to 

Ms. Marshall, Ms. Taylor did not start harassing her until 2011 when the two 

women worked together at the Center Point/Huffman restaurant. (Doc. 26-1, p. 

15). 

In 2011, Bravo placed Ms. Taylor in the Center Point/Huffman restaurant as 

a general manager. (Doc. 26-1, p. 15). By that time, Ms. Marshall was no longer 

rotating between the Eastlake and the Center Point stores; she worked only at the 

Center Point location. When she began working as the general manager of the 

Center Point store, Ms. Taylor’s behavior changed. According to Ms. Marshall, 

“[t[here was a big difference. The harassment was really graphic.” (Doc. 26-1, p. 

14). For example, Ms. Taylor “would walk around like she was wearing or had a 

penis” and would “rub[] her body against [Ms. Marshall’s].” (Doc. 26-1, p. 15). 

Ms. Taylor once asked Ms. Marshall “do you feel this” and said “let me just stick 

the head in.” (Doc. 26-1, p. 15). Ms. Taylor “smacked” Ms. Marshall on her 

buttocks twice. Taylor once commented: “’gol, you got a big ass; when can I get 

some of that[?]” (Id.). Ms. Marshall testified that Ms. Taylor made these 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 27
6

comments or comments like them every day that Ms. Marshall worked with Ms. 

Taylor. (Id. at p. 17). Leroy Davis, an hourly associate, and Aimee Peterson, an 

hourly assistant manager, overheard some of Ms. Taylor’s comments and 

witnessed her behavior. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 15-16). Martez McCoy, another hourly 

associate, also observed Ms. Taylor’s conduct. (Doc. 26-1, p. 28).

Ms. Marshall did not complain about Ms. Taylor’s harassment to Ramon 

Arias. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 9; Doc. 26-1, p 22). Ms. Marshall did not complain

personally about Ms. Taylor’s harassment to Matthew Arias, or her zone manager, 

Frezell Warren. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 18, 20). Ms. Marshall complained about Ms. 

Taylor’s behavior only to Ms. Peterson, who was Ms. Marshall’s equivalent in the 

Bravo management hierarchy. (Doc. 26-1, p. 18). Ms. Marshall told Ms. Peterson 

that Ms. Taylor’s harassment “was getting so bad” that Ms. Marshall “was going to 

say something to somebody.” (Doc. 26-1, p. 18). Ms. Marshall told Ms. Peterson 

that she (Ms. Marshall) “was going to call Matthew [Arias] and talk to him about 

it.” (Doc. 26-1, p. 18). According to Ms. Marshall, Ms. Peterson told Mr. Warren 

that Ms. Marshall planned to call Matthew Arias. (Doc. 26-1, p. 18). 

After Ms. Marshall complained to Ms. Peterson, Mr. Warren changed Ms. 

Marshall’s schedule and required her to work on Sundays. (Doc. 26-1, p. 19). Mr. 

Warren also required Ms. Marshall to make the schedule and clean the back of the 

store, the walls, and the pizza racks. (Doc. 26-1, p. 20). Mr. Warren stopped 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 27
7

communicating with Ms. Marshall about day-to-day operations. (Doc. 26-1, p. 

20).

E. Ms. Marshall’s Termination

On November 11, 2011, Ms. Taylor arranged to trade pizzas with an 

Applebee’s employee in exchange for Applebee’s gift cards. (Doc. 18-5, ¶ 5; Doc. 

26-1, pp. 21-22). Early in the day, Ms. Marshall answered a phone call from 

someone at Applebee’s who asked if the pizzas were ready. (Doc. 26-1, p. 21). 

Ms. Marshall did not see a call-in order, so she asked Ms. Taylor about the call. 

(Doc. 26-1, p. 22). Ms. Taylor took the phone from Ms. Marshall. When Ms. 

Taylor hung up, she told the other crew members to prepare two cheese pizzas, two 

pepperoni pizzas, and two sausage pizzas. (Doc. 26-1, p. 22). 

Ms. Taylor then asked Ms. Marshall and the other crew members if they 

wanted anything to eat from Applebee’s. (Doc. 26-1, p. 22). Ms. Marshall and 

Martez McCoy replied that they would like chicken quesadillas. Ms. Peterson did 

not want food. About an hour later, Mr. McCoy asked Ms. Marshall about the 

food from Applebee’s. Ms. Marshall, in turn, asked Ms. Taylor about the food. 

Ms. Taylor responded that she thought Applebee’s was bringing food but instead 

left gift cards. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 21-22). Ms. Taylor gave Ms. Marshall one of the 

gift cards. The cards were business cards that stated: “Good for $25 worth of food. 

No alcohol. No gratuity.” (Doc. 26-1, pp. 21-22). Ms. Taylor told Ms. Marshall 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 27
8

not to tell anyone what happened, but Ms. Marshall immediately told Mr. McCoy. 

(Doc. 26-1, pp. 22, 28). Mr. McCoy did not respond to Ms. Marshall, but he 

reported the conduct to Matthew Arias. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 22, 24). Ms. Peterson also 

knew about the gift card. (Id.). There is a videotape that captures Ms. Taylor 

giving the card to Ms. Marshall. (Doc. 26-1, p. 24). 

About a week later, Ms. Marshall discussed the incident with Ms. Peterson. 

Ms. Marshall told Ms. Peterson that Ms. Taylor changed the waste log on 

November 11, 2011 to account for the pizzas Ms. Taylor gave away. After that 

conversation, Ms. Marshall returned the gift card to Ms. Taylor because Ms. 

Marshall did not want to owe Ms. Taylor anything. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 22-23). Ms. 

Marshall did not tell Mr. Warren, Ramon Arias, or Matthew Arias about the gift 

card incident. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 22-23, 27). Ms. Marshall explained that she never 

communicated with Ramon Arias; she spoke only to Matthew Arias, and she told 

him “everything” that happened in the store. Ms. Marshall stated that she would 

have told Matthew about the gift card had he come to the store for a visit, but he 

had not been in the store “for a while.” She did not talk to Mr. Warren about the 

gift card because he would have told Ms. Taylor about the conversation. 

According to Ms. Marshall, Mr. Warren and Ms. Taylor were close friends, so 

close, in fact, that Mr. Warren had a key to Ms. Taylor’s apartment. (Id. at pp. 22, 

26-27). 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 27
9

On November 28, 2011, more than two weeks after Ms. Taylor traded pizza 

for Applebee’s gift cards, Mr. Warren met with Ms. Marshall to discuss the gift 

card incident. (Doc. 18-3, ¶ 8; Doc. 26-1, pp. 23-24). Ms. Marshall provided a 

statement as part of Bravo’s investigation. She admitted that Ms. Taylor traded 

pizzas for two $25.00 gift cards redeemable for food at Applebee’s. (Doc. 18-3, ¶ 

8). Ms. Marshall also admitted that Ms. Taylor gave her one of the gift cards. 

(Doc. 18-3, ¶ 8). Mr. Warren reported his findings to Matthew Arias, who 

discussed the matter with Ramon Arias. (Doc. 18-3, ¶ 9; Doc. 18-4, ¶ 7). 

Matthew and Ramon Arias decided to terminate Ms. Marshall’s employment and 

Ms. Taylor’s employment with the company. (Doc. 18-4, ¶ 7). 

Matthew Arias met Ms. Marshall in the parking lot at work on November 

29, 2011 to explain that Bravo terminated her employment because she 

participated “in the misappropriation of company property by receiving the gift 

card which had been traded for pizzas and because she failed to report that the 

misappropriation occurred.” (Doc. 18-4, ¶ 9). According to Ms. Marshall, 

Matthew Arias told her the company had to fire her because she knew that Ms. 

Taylor was stealing and did not tell management. (Doc. 26-1, p. 26). 

On November 28, 2011, one day before Bravo terminated Ms. Marshall’s 

employment, Ms. Peterson told Ms. Marshall that Ms. Peterson “told [Mr. Warren] 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 27
10

everything . . . Everything that was happening about the harassment [and] about 

[Ms. Taylor] giving [Ms. Marshall] that card. . . .” (Doc. 26-1, pp. 18, 21).

F. Procedural Background

Following her termination, Ms. Marshall filed a Charge of Discrimination 

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). After 

investigating Ms. Marshall’s charge, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of 

Right to Sue on September 6, 2012. (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). Ms. Marshall filed a 

complaint in federal court on November 19, 2012. (Doc. 1). After the parties 

engaged in discovery, Bravo filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 16). 

The parties fully briefed the motion. (Docs. 17, 20, 24). After the summary 

judgment briefing, Bravo filed a motion to strike certain exhibits that Ms. Marshall 

submitted in opposition to Bravo’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 23). The 

parties submitted briefs concerning Bravo’s motion to strike. (Docs. 27, 28). On 

this record, the Court considers Bravo’s motions to strike and motion for summary 

judgment.

II. Analysis

A. Bravo’s Motion to Strike

Bravo asks the Court to strike Ms. Marshall’s unsworn handwritten 

statement (Doc. 20-1, pp. 3-4) and Shannon Buell’s affidavit (Doc. 20-1, pp. 5-6), 

both of which Ms. Marshall relied upon in her response to Bravo’s motion for 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 10 of 27
11

summary judgment. (Doc. 23). Under Rule 56(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, at the summary judgment stage, “[a] party may object that the material 

cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be 

admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). These objections function like 

trial objections adjusted for the pretrial setting, and “[t]he burden is on the 

proponent to show that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the 

admissible form that is anticipated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) advisory committee’s 

note (2010 amendments).

Rule 56(c)(2) enables a party to submit evidence that ultimately will be 

admissible at trial in an inadmissible form at the summary judgment stage. For 

example, under the rule, “a district court may consider a hearsay statement in 

passing on a motion for summary judgment if the statement could be reduced to 

admissible evidence at trial or reduced to admissible form.” Jones v. UPS Ground 

Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1293–94 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). A district court has broad discretion to determine at the summary 

judgment stage what evidence it will consider pursuant to Rule 56(c)(2). See 

Green v. City of Northport, 2014 WL 1338106, at *1 (N.D. Ala. March 31, 2014). 

Ms. Marshall refers to her unsworn, handwritten statement to demonstrate 

that Bravo was aware of Ms. Taylor’s alleged sexual harassment. (See Doc. 20, p. 

6, ¶ 7). According to Ms. Marshall’s statement, Mr. Davis told Ms. Marshall that 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 11 of 27
12

Mr. Davis told Matthew Arias that he (Mr. Davis) told Mr. Warren about the 

harassment. Ms. Marshall’s statement also indicates, consistent with Ms. 

Marshall’s deposition testimony, that Ms. Peterson told Ms. Marshall that Ms. 

Peterson told Mr. Warren “everything that happened leading up to [Ms. Marshall] 

being given the gift card.” (Doc. 20-1, p. 3). The portions of the statement upon 

which Ms. Marshall appears to rely contain information that Mr. Davis or Ms. 

Peterson, two co-workers, told Ms. Marshall. Therefore, the statement, in its 

current form, constitutes inadmissible hearsay because Ms. Marshall offers the 

statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)-(2)

(defining hearsay as “a statement that the declarant does not make while testifying 

at the current trial or hearing; and a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of 

the matter asserted in the statement.”). However, Ms. Marshall may call Mr. Davis 

and Ms. Peterson as witnesses at trial. If she does, Ms. Marshall may be able to 

avoid a hearsay objection to testimony from these witnesses. 

The same analysis applies to the evidence contained in Ms. Buell’s affidavit. 

In its current form, the substantive testimony contained in the affidavit is 

inadmissible hearsay. According to Ms. Buell, Ms. Bright said that she (Ms. 

Bright) told Mr. Warren “months before [Ms. Marshal] was fired that Anna Taylor 

had been continuously sexually harassing [Ms. Marshall] and that action should be 

taken against Anna Taylor to stop the harassment.” (Doc. 20-1, p. 6). Ms. Buell’s 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 12 of 27
13

testimony is based entirely on what Ms. Bright told Ms. Buell. (See Doc. 20-1, pp. 

5-6, ¶ 4). Because Ms. Marshall may have the opportunity to call Ms. Bright as a 

trial witness, and Ms. Marshall may elicit testimony that may enable her to avoid a 

hearsay objection, Ms. Marshall may reduce the statements contained in Ms. 

Buell’s affidavit to an admissible form for trial. 

The issue is largely moot at the summary judgment stage, though, because 

the Court finds that there are triable disputed issues of fact without resorting to 

either Ms. Marshall’s unsworn handwritten statement or Ms. Buell’s affidavit. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Bravo’s motion to strike. (Doc. 23).

B. Bravo’s Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Standard of Review

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine 

dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a 

motion for summary judgment must cite “particular parts of materials in the record, 

including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), 

admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c)(1)(A). When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must view 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 13 of 27
14

the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Hill 

v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 510 Fed. Appx. 810, 813 (11th Cir. 2013). “The court 

need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the 

record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). 

2. Ms. Marshall’s Sexual Harassment Claims

To establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment against Bravo under 

Title VII, Ms. Marshall must demonstrate (1) that she belongs to a protected group; 

(2) that she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances,

requests for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature; (3) that the 

harassment was based on her gender; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently 

severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create 

a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) that a basis exists for 

holding Bravo liable. Guthrie v. Waffle House, Inc., 460 Fed. Appx. 803, 806 

(11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). 

There are two ways in which sexual harassment may alter the terms and 

conditions of employment such that an employer may be held liable for an 

employee’s sexual harassment of a co-employee. The first involves a tangible 

employment action. The second concerns a hostile work environment. Ms. 

Marshall asserts claims under both theories.

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 14 of 27
15

a. Tangible Employment Action

Ms. Marshall’s tangible employment claim is not viable. A tangible 

employment action occurs when:

the employee’s refusal to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands 

results in a tangible employment action being taken against her . . . 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. 

Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants, LLC, 367 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 2004). Ms. 

Marshall’s tangible action theory fails for two reasons.

First, the harasser, Ms. Taylor, does not qualify as a supervisor under Vance 

v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013). In Vance, the Supreme Court held that 

a supervisor is one whom “the employer has empowered . . . to take tangible 

employment action against the victim, i.e., to effect a significant change in 

employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with 

significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in 

benefits.” Id. at 2443 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The record 

contains no evidence that indicates that Ms. Taylor had the power to hire, fire, 

promote, or reassign Bravo employees. The record states that this authority rested 

with Ramon Arias and Matthew Arias. (Doc. 18-1, p. 4, ¶ 7; Doc. 18-1, p. 9, ¶ 25). 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 15 of 27
16

Although Ms. Taylor had no power to take formal employment actions, 

general managers, like Ms. Taylor, manage operations at their respective stores and 

provide day-to-day supervision of employees. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7). The Court 

recognizes that in some circumstances, an employer may call upon an employee 

with that type of authority to provide substantial input into employment decisions, 

and “the employer may be held to have effectively delegated the power to take 

tangible employment actions to the employees on whose recommendations it 

relies.” Vance, 133 S. Ct. at 2452 (internal citation omitted). But those are not the 

facts here. The record contains no evidence that Bravo sought input from Ms. 

Taylor or other general managers regarding employment decisions. Rather, the 

undisputed evidence demonstrates that Ramon Arias or Matthew Arias made all 

personnel decisions with input from the human resources department and the 

appropriate zone manager. (Doc. 18-1, p. ¶ 7). Ms. Marshall’s responsive brief 

does not address Bravo’s undisputed evidence on this point, and the Court, upon 

review of the full summary judgment record, finds no testimony that creates a 

genuine issue of fact regarding Ms. Taylor’s role with respect to employment 

decisions. 

Second, assuming for the sake of argument that Ms. Taylor was Ms. 

Marshall’s supervisor, Ms. Marshall has not demonstrated that Ms. Taylor took a 

tangible employment action against Ms. Marshall for her failure to give in to Ms. 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 16 of 27
17

Taylor’s sexual advances. Although Ms. Marshall’s response in opposition to 

summary judgment contains a string citation to a number of cases recognizing the 

tangible action theory (see Doc. 20, pp. 11-12), Mr. Marshall has neither alleged

facts nor presented evidence that suggests that Ms. Taylor or any other Bravo 

supervisor terminated Ms. Marshall’s employment or took some other adverse 

employment action because Ms. Marshall did not submit to Ms. Taylor’s sexual 

demands. Therefore, the tangible action theory is inapplicable in this case, and Ms. 

Marshall may prevail on her sexual harassment claim against Bravo only if she can 

establish a hostile work environment claim. 

b. Hostile Work Environment

The standard for a hostile work environment claim is this:

The second way for sexual harassment to violate Title VII is if 

it is sufficiently severe and pervasive to effectively result in a 

change (sometimes referred to as a constructive change) in the 

terms and conditions of employment, even though the employee 

is not discharged, demoted, or reassigned. This is hostile work 

environment harassment. See id. at 754, 118 S.Ct. at 2265. The 

supervisor does not have to be the harasser for this kind of 

sexual harassment to occur, although experience has proven 

that he often will be. 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 17 of 27
18

Hulsey, 367 F.3d at 1245.3 Bravo does not contest that Ms. Taylor subjected Ms. 

Marshall to severe or pervasive harassment. (Doc. 11, p. 17). Instead, Bravo 

contends that it is not liable for Ms. Taylor’s harassment. 

“Liability for hostile work environment differs depending on whether the 

harassment was perpetrated by a co-worker or a supervisor.” Terell v. Paulding 

Cnty., 539 Fed. Appx. 929, 932 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted). 

Because the harassing conduct that Ms. Marshall describes came from her coworker, Ms. Taylor (a co-worker who could not take a tangible employment action 

against Ms. Marshall), Bravo may be held liable for Ms. Taylor’s conduct only if 

the company “was negligent with respect to the offensive behavior.” Vance, 133 

 

3

In Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals “reiterate[ed] several core principles of employment 

discrimination law.” Id. at 807. The Court wrote: 

first, to prove a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1), a 

plaintiff must show that her employer discriminated because of her membership 

in a protected group, and that the offensive conduct was either severe or pervasive 

enough to alter the terms or conditions of employment; second, Title VII is not a 

civility code, and not all profane or sexual language or conduct will constitute 

discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment; third, workplace 

conduct cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather is to be viewed cumulatively, 

and in its social context; and fourth, a plaintiff can prove a hostile work 

environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her 

protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out in the offensive 

conduct.

Id. The Eleventh Circuit clarified that a Title VII plaintiff does not have to prove that harassing 

conduct was severe and pervasive. Instead, “[e]ither severity or pervasiveness is sufficient to 

establish a violation of Title VII.” Id. at 808. “Evidence of harassment is considered both 

cumulatively and in the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 18 of 27
19

S. Ct. at 2441. Ms. Marshall has the burden of proving that Publix was negligent. 

Id. at 2450.4 

To establish that Bravo was negligent, Ms. Marshall “‘must show that 

[Bravo] either knew (actual notice) or should have known (constructive notice) of 

the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”’ 

Hill, 510 Fed. Appx. at 814 (quoting Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 

1259 (11th Cir. 2003)). “Actual notice is established by proof that management 

knew of the harassment.” Watson, 324 F.3d at 1259. “When an employer has a 

clear and published policy that outlines the procedures an employee must follow to 

report suspected harassment and the complaining employee follows those 

procedures, actual notice is established.” Id. When an employer’s harassment 

policy enumerates specific members of management to whom employees must 

report harassment, an employer does not have actual notice of an employee’s 

harassment if the employee reports the harassment to members of management not 

 

4

 The standard would be different if the harasser were a supervisor, i.e. an employee who Bravo

empowered “to take tangible employment actions” against Ms. Marshall. If Ms. Taylor qualified 

as a supervisor under Vance, then Bravo could be held vicariously liable for her conduct “even in 

the absence of negligence.” Vance, 133 S. Ct at 2441, 2443. When a supervisor’s conduct is at 

issue, if the supervisor’s harassment “does not culminate in a tangible employment action, the 

employer can be vicariously liable for the supervisor’s creation of a hostile work environment if 

the employer is unable to establish an [Ellerth/Faragher] affirmative defense.” Id. at 2442 

(citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 

524 U.S. 742 (1998)). “Specifically, an employer can mitigate or avoid liability by showing (1) 

that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior and (2) 

that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective 

opportunities that were provided.” Id. 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 19 of 27
20

specified in the policy. See Madray v. Publix Supermkts., Inc., 208 F.3d 1290, 

1300 (11th Cir. 2000); Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886, 889–90 

(11th Cir. 2000). 

Bravo’s Pre-Employment Training Handbook states: “Any incident of 

sexual harassment must be reported immediately to Ramon S. Arias @ (205) 587-

1841.” (Doc. 18-1, p. 8, ¶ 2). The handbook also states that employees should 

“immediately report to [their] Manager or Ramon Arias . . . [a]ny instance of 

[h]arassment or inappropriate conduct.” (Doc. 18-1, p. 8, ¶ 11). It is undisputed 

that Ms. Marshall did not report Ms. Taylor’s behavior to Mr. Ramon Arias. 

Ramon Arias testified that he did not witness Ms. Taylor harass Ms. Marshall and

that he did not receive complaints from Ms. Marshall or another Bravo employee 

about the harassment. (Doc. 18-1, p. 4, ¶ 9). 

But Ms. Taylor also had the option under the Bravo handbook of reporting 

Ms. Taylor’s conduct to her “Manager.” (Doc. 18-1, p. 8, ¶ 11). The term 

“Manager” is not clear, particularly in light of Bravo’s management structure. One 

reasonable reading of the term “Manager” is that “Manager” means the manager 

above the individual who is being harassed. In Bravo’s chain of command, the 

manager over an assistant store manager like Ms. Marshall would be the general 

store manager. Ms. Marshall’s general store manager was Ms. Taylor, Ms. 

Marshall’s harasser. Although the record does not indicate that Ms. Marshall 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 20 of 27
21

formally complained to Ms. Taylor about Ms. Taylor’s inappropriate conduct, such 

a complaint would have been futile because Ms. Taylor was aware of her own 

behavior. In addition, Wendy Bright, the Eastlake General Manager, overheard 

comments that Ms. Taylor made to Ms. Marshall at the Eastlake store when Ms. 

Marshall and Ms. Taylor were assistant managers at that store. Ms. Bright asked 

Ms. Marshall, “how do you put up with [Ms. Taylor] talking to you like that.” 

(Doc. 26-1, p. 15). Viewing the ambiguous term “Manager” in the light most 

favorable to Ms. Marshall, a question of fact exists concerning whether Bravo

management knew of Ms. Taylor’s behavior because two general “Manager[s]” 

were aware of Ms. Taylor’s harassing conduct. 

Moreover, there are disputed questions of fact relating to constructive notice, 

some of which have to do with the ambiguity in Bravo’s harassment policy. 

“Constructive notice . . . is established when the harassment was so severe and 

pervasive that management reasonably should have known of it.” Watson, 324 

F.3d at 1259 (citing Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th 

Cir. 2002)). To preclude a finding of constructive notice, an employer must have a 

valid harassment policy that is well-disseminated and effective. Watson, 324 F.3d 

at 1260 (citing Farley v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 115 F.3d 1548, 1553 (11th Cir. 

2002)). “‘Where there is no policy, or where there is an ineffective or incomplete 

policy, the employer remains liable for conduct that is so severe and pervasive as to 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 21 of 27
22

confer constructive knowledge.” Watson, 324 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Farley, 115 

F.3d at 1554) (emphasis in Watson). A company’s harassment policy “must be 

found ineffective when company practice indicates a tolerance toward harassment 

or discrimination.” Miller, 277 F.3d at 1280. A company’s policy also may be 

ineffective when the policy does not provide “multiple avenues of lodging a 

complaint to assessable, designated representatives.” Madray, 208 F.3d at 1299.

Here, “genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude th[is] district court 

from finding that [Bravo] has an effective sexual harassment policy.” Watson, 324 

F.3d at 1260. First, although Ms. Marshall testified that she signed Bravo’s preemployment handbook containing the policy, she also testified that she does not 

remember “signing anything on sexual harassment.” (Doc. 26-1, p. 10). And, Ms. 

Marshall’s acknowledgment form is not located in the record.5 This evidence 

suggests that Bravo’s policy was not “aggressively and thoroughly disseminated” 

See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1279; see also Frederick v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 246 

F.3d 1305, 1315 (11th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff’s testimony that she never received the 

company’s policy created issue of fact regarding whether the policy was 

effectively published.). 

 

5 Bravo submitted “an example of the [new employee] packet” used at the time Ms. Marshall 

was employed. (See Doc. 18-1, p. 3, ¶ 5; Doc. 18-1, pp. 7-9). Ms. Taylor’s signature appears on 

these new employee acknowledgment forms. (Doc. 18-1, pp. 7-9). Bravo cannot locate the 

forms that Ms. Marshall signed. (September 10, 2014 hearing transcript, p. 5). 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 22 of 27
23

Second, questions of fact exist regarding whether Bravo “vigorously 

enforced” the policy and whether the policy provides adequate “alternate avenues 

of redress.” Farley, 115 F.3d at 1554. As stated, Bravo’s policy instructs 

employees to report sexual harassment to Ramon Arias, the president of Bravo. 

(Doc. 18-1, p. 8, ¶ 2). A reasonable juror may conclude that requiring employees 

to report sexual harassment to the president of the company intimidates employees 

to the point that the policy deters employees from making reports of harassment

and fails to offer employees “multiple avenues of lodging a complaint to 

assessable, designated representatives.” Madray, 208 F.3d at 129

Additionally, a reasonable juror may conclude that the alternative reporting 

option for “any incidence of harassment or inappropriate conduct” is confusing and 

ineffective because the policy requires employees to report harassing conduct to a 

“Manager or Ramon Arias,” and nearly every Bravo employee either has 

management responsibilities or is called a manager of some sort. Below Ramon 

and Matthew Arias are zone managers, like Mr. Warren. Below zone managers are 

individual store managers, called general managers. Below general managers are 

assistant managers, like Ms. Marshall. Assistant managers are hourly shift leaders 

but they have a management title. (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7; September 14, 2010 hearing 

transcript, p. 20). Hourly assistant managers “serve as the general manager when 

the general manager is not present in the store.” (Doc. 18-1, ¶ 7). Reasonable 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 23 of 27
24

jurors may infer that because nearly every employee has “manager” in his or her 

title, Bravo does not effectively put its employees on notice of the proper 

“Manager” to whom they should complain about harassment.

Beyond questions concerning the effectiveness of Bravo’s sexual harassment 

policy lies the practical fact that Bravo is not a large company. Company vice 

president Matthew Arias and Zone Manager Frezell Warren typically visited Ms. 

Marshall’s restaurant at least once every week other week. (Doc. 18-3, ¶ 4; Doc. 

18-4, ¶ 3). Ms. Taylor’s harassing behavior, which for purposes of summary 

judgment Bravo does not contest was severe or pervasive, occurred in the Center 

Point/Huffman restaurant on a daily basis from August 2011 until the end of 

November 2011. (Doc. 26-1, p. 17). Ms. Marshall is prepared to present evidence 

that other store employees were well-aware of Ms. Taylor’s conduct, and Ms. 

Taylor and Mr. Warren were very close friends. This evidence creates triable 

issues of fact regarding Bravo’s constructive knowledge of the harassment and the 

company’s tolerance of harassment. See Miller, 277 F. 3d at 1278-79. And, 

“where there is evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Bravo did

know of the harassment,” Bravo’s policy, “no matter how well-designed [] will not 

absolve [Bravo] of liability under Title VII.” Farley, 115 F.3d at 1548 (emphasis 

in original). 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 24 of 27
25

Because questions of fact exist regarding whether Bravo knew or should 

have known about Ms. Taylor’s harassment, summary judgment is not appropriate 

on Ms. Marshall’s hostile work environment claim. 

3. Ms. Marshall’s Retaliation Claims

To establish a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) 

[s]he engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) [s]he suffered a materially 

adverse action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected 

activity and the materially adverse action. Howard v. Walgreen Co., 605 F.3d 

1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2010). If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the 

employer must articulate a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. 

Davis v. Postmaster General, 550 Fed. Appx. 777, 779 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 

Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1567 (11th Cir. 1997)). If the employer meets 

this burden, then “the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered 

explanation is a pretext for retaliation.” Id. Bravo argues that Ms. Marshall’s 

retaliation claims fail because Ms. Marshall did not engage in protected activity. 

The Court agrees.6 

“Under Title VII, an employee has engaged in protected activity if she has: 

(1) opposed an unlawful employment practice, or (2) made a charge, testified, 

 

6 Bravo also contends that Ms. Marshall cannot demonstrate that Bravo subjected her to an 

adverse action or that there was a causal connection between any purported activity and the 

adverse action. Because the Court finds that Ms. Marshall did not engage in protected activity, 

the Court does not reach these arguments. 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 25 of 27
26

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

under Title VII's retaliation provision.” Smith v. City of Fort Pierce, Fla., 565 Fed.

Appx. 774, 777 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The 

record reflects that Ms. Marshall did not engage in either form of protected 

activity. 

Ms. Marshall did not file an EEOC charge until after her termination. (See 

Doc. 1-1, p. 1). Therefore, Ms. Marshall may not recover under the participation 

clause. See E.E.O.C. v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 

2000) (participation clause “protects proceedings and activities which occur in 

conjunction with or after the filing of a formal charge with the EEOC”). The 

undisputed evidence also reflects that Ms. Marshall’s conduct does not fall under 

the opposition clause. Ms. Marshall did not personally complain about Ms. 

Taylor’s alleged sexual harassment to anyone other than Ms. Peterson.

7

 Although 

questions of fact exist concerning the extent to which Bravo had notice of Ms. 

Taylor’s conduct for purposes of Ms. Marshall’s hostile work environment claim, 

Ms. Marshall has not offered sufficient evidence that she actively opposed any 

practice made unlawful by Title VII for purposes of a retaliation claim.

8

 

 

7

Even if Ms. Peterson told Mr. Warren about Ms. Marshall’s complaints of sexual harassment, 

Ms. Peterson’s report to Mr. Warren would constitute protected activity taken by Ms. Peterson, 

not Ms. Marshall. 

8

See Murphy v. City of Aventura, 383 Fed. Appx. 915, 918 (11th Cir. 2010) (‘“A complaint 

about an employment practice constitutes protected opposition only if the individual explicitly or 

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 26 of 27
27

Because Ms. Marshall cannot establish the first element of her prima facie 

case, Bravo is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Marshall’s Title VII 

retaliation claims.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Bravo’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16) and 

DENIES Bravo’s motion to strike (Doc. 23). The Court enters judgment as a 

matter of law in favor of Bravo on Ms. Marshall’s retaliation claims. The Court 

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Ms. Marshall’s retaliation claims. The Court 

SETS Ms. Marshall’s hostile work environment claim for a jury trial at 9:00 a.m.

on June 22, 2015. The Court will provide the parties additional instructions in a 

forthcoming pre-trial order. 

DONE and ORDERED this March 31, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

implicitly communicates a belief that the practice constitutes unlawful employment 

discrimination.’”) (quoting EEOC Compl. Man. (CCH) §§ 8-II-B(2) (2006)); see also Demers v. 

Adams Homes of N.W. Fla., Inc., 321 Fed. Appx. 847, 852 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[T]o engage in 

protected activity, the employee must still, at the very least, communicate [his] belief that 

discrimination is occurring to the employer, and cannot rely on the employer to infer that 

discrimination has occurred.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Brown v. City of 

Opelika, 211 Fed. Appx. 862, 863-64 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (plaintiff did not engage in 

protected activity because she did not use the word “race” when she complained to supervisors, 

and the plaintiff “never voiced a complaint that the City was engaged in an unlawful

employment practice.”).

Case 2:12-cv-03914-MHH Document 30 Filed 03/31/15 Page 27 of 27