Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02711/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02711-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen J. Osborne
Appellant
The Denver Publishing Company
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

KATHLEEN J. OSBORNE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FIL~)) 

UaJt d Scares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 2 5 YQ90 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

THE DENVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, 

d/b/a THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, 

No. 86-2711 

(D.C. No. 85-Z-762) 

(D. Colorado) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, TIMBERS** and BALDOCK, Circuit 

Judges 

Plaintiff-appellant Kathleen Osborne appeals from a judgment 

for the defendant-appellee, The Denver Publishing Company, d/b/a 

The Rocky Mountain News (News). The adverse judgment dismissed 

Osborne's suit under Title VII in which she asserted claims of 

sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment and that the 

News retaliated against her for her actions in filing an EEOC 

complaint and for opposing and reporting sexual harassment. The 

court entered the judgment after it sustained a motion for 

dismissal under Rule 4l(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., during the bench 

trial on the Title VII claims. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**The Honorable William H. Timbers, United States Circuit Judge 

for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 1 
The findings and conclusions adverse to plaintiff Osborne 

were stated orally by the trial judge during the bench trial and a 

judgment of dismissal was entered . A timely motion of Osborne to 

alter or amend the judgment was denied, and this appeal followed. 

I 

FACTS 

Plaintiff Osborne's suit under Title VII was commenced in 

March 1985. 1 In her complaint Osborne alleged she had been 

subjected to intolerable sexual harassment at the News in 

violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). 2 Osborne also 

charged that there had been retaliation against her for filing a 

complaint with the EEOC, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 3 

1 

The suit as originally filed named as defendants the Denver 

Post Corporation and the Denver Mailers Union No. 8, as well as 

The Denver Publishing Company, d/b/a The Rocky Mountain News. 

However, during the pendency of the complaint settlements were 

reached among the plaintiff Osborne, the Denver Post Corporation 

and the Denver Mailers Union No. 8, and this appeal concerns only 

the plaintiff-appellant Osborne and the defendant-appellee News. 

2 

3 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) reads in part as follows: 

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer: 

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 

individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any 

individual with respect to his compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such 

individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national 

origin .... 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) reads in part as follows: 

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer to discriminate against any of his employees or 

applicants for employment ... because he has opposed 

any practice made an unlawful employment practice by 

this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, 

(Footnote continued on next page) 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 2 
In addition, at trial Osborne's attorneys argued that the evidence 

showed that she had experienced retaliation for both filing the 

complaints with the EEOC and for compla±ning to management about 

incidents of sexual harassment. II R. at 8-10. 

Osborne testified that there were numerous incidents of 

sexual harassment at the News in the mail room where she worked. 

Osborne said her job was that of a journeyman mailer, an employee 

that puts inserts such as comics, the TV Guide, etc. in the 

newspapers. She testified that she was subjected to vulgar sexual 

epithets, some aimed at her personally. II R. at 35-36. She said 

there were advertisements and drawings posted in the work area 

containing vulgar language and vulgar drawings, one being a 

clipping about violence against women. In particular, there was a 

"card" given to her with a picture and some drawings and language 

with sexual connotations. She also said there was graffiti found 

in the rest rooms. 

Osborne claimed that she had been physically assaulted when 

another employee tried to run her off the road. II R. at 30-31. 

On another occasion she was verbally assaulted and spat upon as 

she drove into work and she said a beer can was thrown at her on 

this occasion. II R. at 61-65. Osborne testified that 

supervisory personnel had made sexual advances. II R. at 58-60. 

Management personnel were called as witnesses during the 

plaintiff's case and during their testimony they said there was a 

conflict in the employees' stories, and that when there were no 

(Footnote continued): 

testified, assisted, or participated in any 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

subchapter. 

3 

manner in an 

under this 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 3 
witnesses to corroborate such an incident, the policy had been to 

send both parties home until it could be determined what had 

happened. III R. at 131, 157-158. On at least one occasion, 

Osborne alone had been sent home because management personnel 

concluded she had lied about her immediate supervisor's handl i ng 

of the incident, which involved actions of a co-worker. III R. at 

170-171, 178. 

The management personnel testified the News had taken other 

action in specific instances. The News instituted a training 

program for supervisors for dealing with drug and alcohol use on 

the job, as well as sexual and racial harassment. III R. at 229. 

In response to drug and alcohol use, and sexual and racial 

harassment in the mail room, Mr. Martelon wrote a letter to the 

Union stating that such behavior would not be tolerated. 

Defendant's Ex. C. Mr. Martelon also read a joint statement of 

the News and the Union which said that sexual harassment was 

against company policy. The News had a posted policy against 

sexual harassment since 1982. III R. at 163; Defendant's Ex. H; 

III R. at 227-228. One employee, Olinek, was terminated for 

sexual harassment, but later reemployed. Defendant's Ex. E; III 

R. at 196. And one supervisor was demoted, which was perhaps in 

part for his inability to deal with Osborne's complaints. One of 

Osborne's witnesses testified the situation in the mail room had 

improved, III R. at 145, but Osborne testified that she felt the 

situation was still intolerable, although she was trying to live 

with it. II R. at 79; III R. at 109-110. 

This outline summarizes the general nature of the testimony 

developed during the plaintiff's case. As stated, during the 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 4 
bench trial the judge granted the defendant's Rule 4l(b) motion to 

dismiss at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case. The judge then 

announced from the bench her findings a-nd conclusions, which were 

in part as follows: 

Let me go right to Henson [Henson v. Dundee, 682 

F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)]. 'For sexual harassment to 

state a claim under Title VII, it must be sufficiently 

sever [sic] or pervasive so as to alter the conditions 

of employment and create an abusive working environment. 

Whether sexual harassment at the working place is 

sufficiently severe and persistent to affect adversely 

the psychological well-being of employees is a question 

to be determined with regard to the totality of the 

circumstances.' (V R. at 2.) 

There is no question that the description of the 

working conditions and the incidents related by the 

plaintiff in this case show that this is not the most 

pleasant place for a woman to work. There are a lot of 

off color words and jokes, grafitti in the bathroom, 

sexual comments; and I suppose to some extent where you 

get--well, I suspect in this case where you have a woman 

who is sensitive to that environment, as Ms. Osborne is, 

that probably her sensitivity and the fact that she's 

not going to just take some of these comments but is 

going to give it back and is going to complain about it 

and is going to 'make trouble,' quote/unquote, for some 

of the men who are doing it, because there are cases 

where people have been demoted or terminated, certainly 

means that she's going to be perhaps the object of some 

concentrated attention by some of these men who, No. 1, 

are not very happy about women being there--at least 

some of them--and who are specifically not very happy 

about the plaintiff, who isn't going to take their 

comments without doing something about it, being there. 

(V R. at 3-4.) 

.... There are--there is some testimony of some 

suggestions by some of the men employees who would like 

to date the plaintiff and who stared at her or were 

unpleasant to her when she turned them down. But for 

the most part, this is not a case of sexual advances by 

somebody in the workplace towards the plaintiff. This 

is a case of the hostile--allegedly hostile environment. 

And the question is whether this is so pervasive that it 

amounts to sexual harassment. (V R. at 4.) 

5 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 5 
[I]t would appear from my observations and from the 

testimony that Mr. Martelon is a sensitive person, along 

with his subordinate supervisors, trying to do the best 

job he can to attack- what is a very complex and very 

difficult and very involved problem in this mailroom, 

involved and complicated because of the union 

involvement and difficult because we have situations 

where whether the plaintiff has complained, for example, 

about Mr. Olinek's obscene gesture, and apparently he 

came forward and complained that she gave him the finger 

and there were countercharges. (V R. at 5-6.} 

Well, what we have that has unfolded before this 

court in the last two days has been a complex working 

situation, a not terribly pleasant place to work, where 

it would appear to the Court that the management is 

struggling mightily to do something about the situation, 

not totally successfully, but struggling nevertheless. 

There has been testimony that grafitti in the bathroom 

is spray-painted as soon as it comes to the attention of 

the supervisor. It's been testified to that Mr. Olinek, 

as one person, was reprimanded and ultimately discharged 

for his behavior. Mr. Bryan, who appears to be a 

19-year-old young person, was apparently discharged. 

Whether the absolutely unacceptable conduct of trying to 

force the plaintiff off the road has anything to do with 

his discharge may remain a question, but he was punished 

in a court of law concerning that conduct. Mr. Reamy, 

who apparently was staring at the plaintiff after she 

turned him down for a date and wasn't handling the 

situation very well supervising, involving some of the 

females and the problems that they were having, at least 

that the plaintiff was having, was demoted from a 

supervisor's position. 

So there was action taken and there was 

investigation; and the testimony of Mr. Martelon, who is 

a very credible witness, that he put in these numerous 

hours personally, 50 to 60 hours personally talking to 

people about this April, '85 incident, is credible 

testimony. I believe him. And I believe that he's very 

sincere and takes very seriously these many complaints 

that have come up in the mailroom and these many 

complaints by the plaintiff, Ms. Osborne. (V R. at 

6-7.} 

I think the one problem that management has--and 

I've already mentioned this, but I would simply say that 

they have to be very sensitive as far as discouraging 

women from coming forward if there are complaints 

because of their fear that that someone may say they 

6 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 6 
were given the finger by the woman or some other 

relatively insignificant or fabricated story and for 

that reason the women are sent home. And that would 

certainly discourage the complaints, and they should not 

be discouraged. 

Rule 41 says that after the Court hears the 

plaintiff's case, the Court may consider a motion to 

dismiss and decide it on the law as of--and the facts as 

of that point and decide whether the defendant should be 

required to go forward or whether the Court is of the 

opinion that judgment can be rendered as of that point. 

And in this case, the Court, if the plaintiff--if the 

defendant were to rest and not present any evidence, 

would decide this case in favor of the defendant for 

dismissal. Not easily, because this is an environment 

that is a very uncomfortable environment, from the 

testimony. I think the plaintiff, although there have 

been some questions raised by credibility or changing 

story, is basically a credible witness. And I don't 

think this is a frivolous complaint. I think she's very 

sincere, and I don't think she or her attorneys are 

making this claim in bad faith. 

It does appear to me, though, that the Rocky 

Mountain News through Mr. Martelon, through the other 

supervisors, are making some valiant effo rts to improve 

the situation and should be commended for what they are 

doing instead of criticized for what they're not doing 

and should be encouraged through the plaintiff and 

others to continue their procedures to try to make this 

a good working environment for women and to make this an 

environment, as stated by the Vinson court, where it 

isn't so fear or persuasive to alter the conditions of 

employment. (V R. at 8-9.) 

Nor can I find any clear preponderance of the 

evidence that there has been any retaliation of 

management against this plaintiff because of her filing 

her Title VII complaint with the EEOC. There have been 

some problems that she may have had after that November 

filing with co-employees but not the Rocky Mountain 

News, not attributable to the Rocky Mountain News. 

And on the primary claim, the claim of sexual 

harassment, yes, this i s an environment with sexual 

harassment; but this is an environment which is not so 

severe and persuasive [sic] as to alter the conditions 

of the employment and create an abusive working 

environment. This is a situation where there are 

procedures, where there are policies, where employees 

are encouraged to see the supervisors, and I hope they 

will continue to be. And this is not a problem of not 

being able to see the supervisors because the 

7 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 7 
supervisors are involved in the sexual harassment, or at 

least not in most cases. In one case where there was 

one--a supervisor who may have been part of the problem, 

he was demoted. (V R. at 10.) 

[S]o therefore, I would say in this case I can't 

find by the preponderance of the evidence that the Title 

VII case has been proven. (V R. at 11.) 

The judgment will be entered in favor of the 

defendant in this case for dismissal. In view of the 

particular situation here, the Court is going to order 

each party should pay her or its own costs; and the 

Court further under the holding of Christianburg Garment 

v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, does not consider this to be a 

frivolous case or one brought in bad faith and 

specifically orders that attorneys fees are each going 

to be paid by the party hiring the attorneys; and I'm 

not going to assess defendant's attorneys fees to the 

plaintiff in this case under that holding. (V R. at 

12.) 

II 

ISSUES ON APPEAL 

As noted, there was a motion to alter or amend the judgment, 

which the trial judge overruled. This appeal was taken by 

plaintiff Osborne and the Opening Brief of Appellant, at 3, states 

that two general issues are raised on appeal: 

(1) Whether the trial court erred as a matter of 

law in ruling that the evidence at trial was 

insufficient to prove the existence of a pervasive 

atmosphere of sexual harassment constituting a 'hostile 

work environment' in violation of Title VII? 

(2) Whether the trial court erred as a matter of 

law in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) due to retaliation 

by the News against plaintiff? 

While the plaintiff Osborne does not specifically state as 

one of these general questions a challenge to the findings of the 

court as clearly erroneous, we feel that such an assertion is 

subsumed in these two general arguments and will consider the 

8 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 8 
# 

correctness of the findings related to the basic rulings which are 

challenged. The ultimate findings of fact against the plaintiff's 

claims will be reviewed under the -clearly erroneous - standard of 

Rule 52, Fed. R. Civ. P. We feel this is clearly proper in light 

of the holding of the Supreme Court in the Title VII case of 

Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982). There the Court 

held that under§ 703(h) of Title VII, discriminatory intent is a 

finding of fact to be made by the trial court and that a court of 

appeals may only reverse a district court's finding on 

discriminatory intent if it concludes that the finding is clearly 

erroneous under Rule 52(a). Id. at 289-290. 

In another Title VII case, the Court held that where there 

are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder's 

choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous; this is so even 

when the district court's findings do not rest on credibility 

determinations, but are based instead on physical or documentary 

evidence or inferences from other facts. Anderson v. City of 

Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). Foremost among the 

general principles we must follow is that "[a) finding is 'clearly 

erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the 

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson, 

470 U.S. at 573 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum 

Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). 

III 

ANALYSIS 

Essentially we must determine whether the findings on the 

sexual harassment work environment claim and the retaliation claim 

9 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 9 
were clearly erroneous. We do not agree with plaintiff Osborne 

that the trial judge failed to apply any legal standard or an 

. incorrect standard .and- are satisfied that she adequately and 

properly discussed the claims asserted. 

First, she properly addressed the standard for a sexual 

harassment work environment claim, referring to Vinson and Henson 

v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982), and saying that for such 

a claim to be stated under Title VII, "it must be sufficiently 

sever [sic] or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of 

employment and create an abusive working environment." Findings 

and Conclusions, V R. at 2. The findings stated that the News, 

through Mr. Martelon and other supervisors, was making valiant 

efforts to improve the situation, id. at 9, and found that what 

was before the court was not a "terribly pleasant place to work," 

id. at 6, but that "this is an environment which is not so severe 

and persuasive [sic] as to alter the conditions of employment and 

create an abusive work environment." 4 Id. at 10. We cannot agree 

that this ultimate finding against Osborne was clearly erroneous. 

Moreover, in determining that there was no liability the 

trial judge made findings referring to the credibility of Mr. 

Martelon and his sincerity. V R. at 7. The judge found that 

"management is certainly taking some very strong steps to take 

4 

We are mindful that the trial judge's findings in this 

instance state that "this is an environment which is not so severe 

and persuasive [sic] as to alter the conditions of employment and 

create an abusive working environment," V R. at 10, using the 

conjunctive, while the Supreme Court in Vinson used the 

disjunctive "severe or pervasive" in its analysis. 477 U.S. at 

67. No point is made of this in the briefs before us and we are 

not disturbed by this, particularly since the judge used the 

disjunctive in her early statements on the law in the findings. V 

R. at 2. 

10 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 10 
care of the problem, training programs for supervisors, 

investigation of the complaints, and sanctions against employees, 

including discharge in a couple situations, spray painting of 

graffiti .... 11 Id. at 8. The judge was undoubtedly referring 

to Olinek who was discharged, and later reemployed. These 

additional findings support the ruling for the defendant on the 

basis of the corrective measures taken by the News. Such remedial 

action is relevant since ingredients of such a Title VII claim are 

both the existence of a hostile and abusive work environment, and 

the employer's notice and failure to take corrective measures. 

Baker v. Weyerhaeuser Co., ___ F.2d ___ (No. 89-7013, 10th 

Cir., 5/30/90, Slip Op. at 5, 9-10) (citing and quoting Hunter v. 

Allis-Chalmers Corp., 797 F.2d 1417, 1421-22 (7th Cir. 1986)). 

Thus the finding of remedial action taken was another ground for 

the dismissal of Osborne's claim, and we again hold that the 

finding was not clearly erroneous. 

With respect to the claim of retaliatory action by the News 

against Osborne, there was a specific finding, quoted above, that 

the trial judge could not "find any clear preponderance of the 

evidence that there has been any retaliation of management against 

this plaintiff because of her filing her Title VII complaint with 

the EEOC." V R. at 10. There is no showing that this finding is 

clearly erroneous. Complaint is made that the trial judge's 

findings did not address the other actions claimed to be 

retaliation, such as the sending home of plaintiff Osborne on 

occasions. The judge found that there may have been some problems 

after the November filing of the EEOC complaint, but that they 

were not attributable to the News. 

11 

The trial judge's findings 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 11 
• 

referred to countercharges being easy to make and that the person 

investigating had to be sensitive to the fact that it "certainly 

does discourage women from c9ming -forward to complain if those 

women are to be suspended for a day or treated in some sort of a 

detrimental manner II V R. at 6. The findings then 

referred to Mr. Martelon, his sincerity and serious treatment of 

the complaints. Id. at 7. While the findings do not expressly 

reject the additional claims of retaliation allegedly directed to 

Osborne's complaints, we feel it sufficiently clear that these 

additional allegations of retaliation were considered and rejected 

as a basis of liability of the News. The judge was obviously 

persuaded that the company's actions overall were genuine efforts 

to remedy the situation, and that there was no justification for 

an inference of retaliatory motive. Burrus v. United Telephone 

Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

459 U.S. 1071 (1982). 

In sum, the findings of the trial court are not shown to be 

clearly erroneous and the judgment of dismissal was not error. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

William J. Holloway, Jr. 

Chief Judge 

12 

Appellate Case: 86-2711 Document: 010110037107 Date Filed: 06/25/1990 Page: 12