NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0698n.06 F iled: Septem ber 26, 2006 No. 05-6517 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
EL I Z AB ETH HAN L EY, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. CHEVY CHASER MAGAZ I NE, L L C, and C H A R L E S C R E A C Y , In d i v i d u a l l y, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL

FROM THE U

NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

B e fo re : ME RRI TT , SU TT ONand GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
PER C URI AM. Elizabeth Hanley challeng es the district cour t’s order g rantingsu m m ary jud g me nt o n h e r state -l aw ho sti le wo rk e nv ir on me nt a

nd int e nti on a l in fl ic tio n o f e mot ion a l di str e ss
c la ims . B e c a

us e Ha nle y ha s e sta bli sh e d g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t w ithre g ard t o eac h c la im,
we r ever se.
I. Chevy Chaser Ma g azine, L L C, is a small Kentucky limit ed liability

co rp o ration, which employ s roug hly ten people and is c o-owne d by Charles Creac y and Chris Eddie
. T h e c o m pany publishes two local mag azines on a monthly basis (Chevy

Cha s er M aga zine and Southsi der Mag azine) and ope rate s a small print shop. T he compa ny hired Elizabeth Hanle y

in Febr uary 2002No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 2 - as a sa lesperson. H anley

had no prior experience in publishing and was hired in part a s a re sult of her f riendship with Creac y ’s wife , Susan, who had attended hig h scho o l wi t h Ha nley and who maintained a c lose frie ndship with her.
Creac y was the c ompany ’s chief salesper son and per fo rm ed supervisory duties (including dir e c tly su pe rv isi ngHa

nle y ) w hil e Ed die su

pe rv ise d th e pu

bli c a tio n a

nd de sign o f t

he ma g a zine s. Am be r S c ott wa s th e e dit or

of bo th m a g a zine s and

a lso su pe rv ise d H anle y . T he c omp any e ve ntu a lly promoted H an le y to s a le s ma n a g e r , w h e r e s h e r e ma in e d u n ti l th e c o mp an y d is c h ar g e d h e r on November

29, 2003.
I n the months p re cedingHanley ’s dischar g e, Crea cy alleg edly eng ag ed in the following
c on du c t:

• I n late August, at the offic e (a nd in the prese nce of

other e mploy ees) , Creac y told Hanley

that “he would like to masturbate” w ith her blouse. JA 113. Creacy admits making a

“lewd j o k e ” a b o u t H an l e y ’ s s h i rtt h a t“ i mp l i e d m a s tu r b a t i o n ” e v e ni f

h e d i d n o tu s e t h e w o r d
. JA 262. And in ear ly

September, Cre acy

made a simil ar c omment to Hanley at a r estaura

nt wher e seve ral e mploy ees ha d g ather ed af ter a work func tion.

• At the offic e, while discussinga proble m with Hanley , Creac y told her that re solving it didn’t ma tte r b e c a

us e “ y ou loo k s o d a mn g oo d. ” JA 12 2. Ha nle y disc us se d th is i nc ide nt w ith Scott, who told her “that he had made comments to h er as we ll about things she ha d been wea ring lately ,” including that “he w anted to bite her rig ht calf” when she wore a ski rt one day . J A 123. On anothe r occ asion, Crea cy commented that Ha

nley ’s new ha ircut “showe d off he r nec k and that he might wa nt to nibble on her nec k or kiss her ne ck.” JA 677. Such c omm e nts we re no t un c omm on duri ng thi s ti me pe ri od , a s Cr e a c y wo uld “ make c omm e nts about the wa

y our butt looked in a pair of pants,” for ex ample, J A 125, and it g ot to the point wher e Ha nley felt so uncomfor

table that she “didn’t know what to wea r t o work.” J A 123.

• “ Pr ob a

bly tw ic e a we e k” duri ngthi s p e ri od Cre a c y re c ounte d h is s e xua l e xploi ts w ithhis wife in g raphic detail at the of fice . J A 679–80.No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 3 - • B e g inn ingin e arl y Se pte mbe r a

nd c on tin uin g thr ou g ho ut the fa ll, Cr e a c y fl a un te d h is a ff

a ir wi th f e llo w e mpl oy e e Ros e De lle r. Ha nle y fi rs t re c og nize d the sit

uatio n wh e n Cr e a c y

tol d her at the office that Deller had told him she “would [have sex wit h ] h im.” J A 137. There afte r, Crea cy

and De ller we re “ wh i s p eringall the time,” she “ started dr essing like a prostitute,” J A 140, and they would g o to lunch private ly , J A 667. “Eve ry body felt . . . the sexual tension that was produce d beca use of [Creac y ] and Deller.” J A 668.

• On Octobe r 3, at a local ra ce tr ack, Cre acy “g rabbe d [Hanley ’s] butt ” and the butts of “[o] ther [ employ ees].” J A 119. I n response , Hanley “smac ked his arm.” J A 120. Ever y one fr om t he of fi c e wa s at th e tr a c k th a t da y , a s “ [t]he of

fi c e wa s c los e d” and Cr e a c y and Ed die
“ g a ve [the e mpl oy e e s] 20 bu c ks to g a mbl e wi th. ” JA 69 7. Cr e a c y “ re c a ll[s] g ra

bb ingso me butts” that day

but rec alls doing so at the office prior to leaving for the rac e tra ck. JA 264.

• At dinne r fo llo wi ng the da

y a t th e ra c e tr a c k, Cr e a c y e xch ang e d s e xua l lo ok s and a c ts w ith Deller , including pla cing “their f eet in ea ch other ’s cr otches.” J A 144.

• Cr e a c y

e xch a ng e d s e xua lly

e xplic it e ma ils wi th D e lle r u sin g the ir bu sin e ss e ma il a c c ounts
. Scott discovered some of these while using D eller’ s computer ( which wa s her old computer ) on Oc tober 10 . “ Ev e ry

bo dy c ou ld u se any

bo dy ’s c omp ute r i n th e of fi c e . I t w a sn ’t

a big deal .” JA 1 46 . Sc ott

wa s u ps e t by the se e ma ils , c on tin

ue d mo nit or ingDe lle r’ s e ma il a c c o u n tan d s h ar e d p r i n t e d

- o u t e m a i l s w i t h t h e o t h e r w o m e ni nt h e o f

f i c e , i n c l u d i n g H an l e y. Although Scott confronted Creacy about hi s relationship with Deller, she didn’t disclose her possession of the ema ils prior to Hanley ’s termination. After rea ding these emails, Hanle y “ wa sn ’t in the of fi c e ve ry muc h, ” “ wa sn ’t sle e pin g a lot ,” “ wa sn ’t e a tin g ” (s he dr op pe d s ix dress sizes) and “ could not d o [ h er ] j o b eff ectively .” JA 157–58. Following Cre acy ’s confr ontation with Scott (whi ch occurre d in mid-October, JA 491), Crea cy and De ller’s behavior “g ot a little bit m ore quie t and sedated, but it didn’t stop.” J A 495.
I n discharg ing Hanley on November 29, 2003, the company explained that she was having pr ob le ms w ithse ve ra l of

the a c c ounts sh e mana g e d. Ha nle y do e s n ot d e ny

the ex is ten ce of th e se pro b l em s b u t attributes them to her ina bility to work ef

fec tively due to the above incidents in the office
.No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 4 - F o l l o w i n g h e r

t e r m i n a t i o n , C r e a c y

( a f t e r i n v e s t i g a t i n g i r

r e g u l ar i t i e s i nH an l e y ’ s a c c ou nts ) filed a c riminal theft complaint ag ainst Hanley on Dec ember

22, 2003. The jury

returne d a ver dict in Hanley ’s favor on May 3, 2005.
Whil e the c riminal char g e wa s pending , Hanley filed a c omplaint ag ainst Chevy Chaser a nd Cr e a c y in s tate c ourt
. Th e c omp la int a lle g e d unla wf ul s e xua l ha

ra ssm e nt a

nd re ta liatio n und e r T itl e VI Iand the Ke ntucky Civil Rights Act (ag ainst Chevy Chaser) , as well as the Kentucky common-law tor t of int e nti on a l inf

lic tio n of e mot ion a l di str e ss ( a g a ins t Cr e a c y ). Th e de fe nd ants re mov e d th e c a se to fede ral c ourt. Hanle y

eventua lly dropped the Title VI Iclaim, and the district c ourt reje cted the
rema ining c laims as a matter of law. O n appea l, Hanley challeng es onl y the di smissal of the statelaw h os til e wo rk

e nv ir on me nt a

nd int e nti on a l in fl ic tio n o f e mot ion a l di str e ss c la ims
.

II.
We revie w t he dis trict court’s gr ant of summary judgme nt de novo. Randolph v. Ohio Dep’ t of You th S

e rv s. , 453 F.3d 724, 731 (6 t h Cir. 2006). Summary judgme nt is appropriate “if the pleading s, depositions, answers t o i nterrog atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with the
a ff ida vit s, if any , sho w that the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f a c t and that th e mov ingpa

rt y is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . I n re v i ew i n g a summary judgme nt decision, we vie w the evide nce in the lig ht most favorable t o t h e non-moving party —Hanley
. Randolph , 453 F.3d at 731.
A.No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 5 - Hanley first cha lleng es the district cour t’s di s p o sition of her state- law, hostile-workenvironment c laim. See K y . Re v . St a t. § 3 44.010, et seq . That statute prohibits employ ers f rom “discriminat[ing] ag ainst an individual with respec t to compens a ti o n , te r ms , c o n d it ions, or privileg es of employ ment, beca

use of the i ndividual’s
. . . sex . . . .” Id. a t § 3 44 .0 40 (1 ). “ [I ]n c on so na nc e wi th Title VI I ,” Am e ric an Ge ne ra l Life& Ac c . I ns . Co . v . H

all , 74 S.W. 3d

68 8, 69 1 ( Ky . 2 00 2) , a

ho sti le workplac e under

Kentucky

law is one “ perme ated with discriminatory intimi dation, ridi cu l e, and insult t hat is suf

ficiently sever e or perva sive to a lter the conditions of the victim’s employ ment and
cre ate an abusive working environment.” Am me rm an v . Bd. of Ed uc . of Nich ola s Co un ty , 30 S.W .3d 793, 798 (Ky . 2000) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Among other misconduct, a hostile work environment include s “‘unw elcome sex ual advances, requests for sexual favor s, and other verba l or phy sical conduc t of a sexual nature .’” Mey ers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc. , 840 S.W .2d 814, 821 (Ky . 1 9 9 2 ) ( em p h as es o m i t t ed ) ( qu o t i n g Meritor Sav. Bank , FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986)). I n deter mining whe ther the plaintiff has established that suc h an envir onment exis ts, the fac tfinder
mus t c on sid e r al l of the c ir c ums tanc e s, inc lud ing“ ‘t he fr e qu e nc y

of the dis c ri min a tor

y c on du c t; i ts
sever ity ; whether

it is phy sically

threatening or humiliating, or a mere offe nsive ut t er ance ; and whether it unreasona

bly interfe res with an e mploy ee’ s work per formanc e.’” Amme rman , 30 S.W .3d at 7 9 8 (q u o t i n g Ha rri

s v. Forklift Systems, I

nc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).
Severa l of Hanle y ’s alleg ations, as the district court corr ectly found, do not pr operly bear on he r h os til e -w or

k- e nv ir on me nt c la im: the a lle g e d a ff a ir be tw e e n Cr e a c y

and De lle r, the e ma ils
e xch ang e d b e tw e e n Cr e a c y and De lle r an d Cre a c y ’s (n on -s e xua l) be havio r t ow ard oth e r e mpl oy e e s.No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 6 - See Dist. Ct. Op. at 11–12. Creac y ’s affair with Deller was simply

not an ac t of hara ssment directe d
a t H anle y . Wh ile Ha

nle y had ever y reason

to b e dis tr e sse d b y

the a pp are nt e xiste nc e of

an a ff a ir inv olv inghe r b e st f

ri e nd ’s hu sb and , s he ha s n ot s ho wn how the e xiste nc e of

that r e latio ns hip
su bje c te d h e r to a

ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir on me nt. Th e e ma ils be tw e e n Cr e a c y and De lle r w e re me ant t o be private, and Cre acy

was not re sponsible for Ha nley ’s discovery o f t h em . Finally , Hanley ’s alleg ations of ag g ressive workplac e conduct—that Creac y “would berate [an] employ ee in f ront of others, would not spe ak to the m a nd made them fee l unc omfortable,” Hanley Br
. at 6—establish that the conduct by

its contex t was not bec ause of sex. See J A 128–29 (identify ing “ J oseph Thompson” and “T odd Merc ier” as two male vic tims of this behavior ).
As to th e rem ain inga lle g a tio ns , h ow e ve r, we pa rt wa y s w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt . F ro m late Aug ust 2003 through H anley ’s dischar g e in late Nove mber 2003, Ha n l ey s et forth evide nce that establishes a tria

ble issue of fa ct about the e x istence of a hostile work e nv i ro n m ent. To beg in, Hanley stated that Crea cy ’s discriminatory conduct wa s consistent and perv as i v e, and another employ ee ( Scott) bolstered those a lleg ations. Both women te stified throug h depositions that Creacy fre quently

made se x ually

ag g ressive c omments about their clothing , and S co t t t es t ified that he fre quently re galed them with stories of his sexual exploi ts. Se e Me y e rs , 840 S.W .2d at 823 (explaining that thi rd-pa

rty descr iptions of work environment a re r eleva nt to “to show why

[t he vic tim ] be lie ve d s he wa s w orki ngin a se xua lly ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir on me nt” ); see also W anchik v

. Great Lakes H

ea l t h P l a n , Inc. , 6 Fe d. App’x 252, 262 (6th Ci r. 2001) ( holding that “ episodes ofNo. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 7 - hara ssment conce rning other wome n are probative [of] plaintiff’s experience ” so l o n g as pl aintiff is awar e of the alleg ed incidents).
Con sid e re d in

its e nti re ty , mo re ov e r, Cr e a c y ’s c on du c t amou nts to mor e tha

n g ard e n- va

ri e ty bad taste. B y

phy sically

g rabbingHanley and her co-w orker s, he we nt bey ond sexually threatening
rema rks to sexually

offe nsive contac t. And sever al of his comments, such as his ex presse d desire to masturbate with Ha

nley ’s shirt and nibble on her neck, w ere tinge d with phy sically threatening overtone s. Creac y ’s story tell ing a lso reac hed a le vel of vulg arity that could fa irly

aff ect a n employ ee’ s capa city

to continue to work. See J A 679–80 (“ He would sa y he ca me home last nig ht
and he be nt S us an o ve r t

he kit c he n s ink

and the y f* ** e d .
. . .” ). Take n tog e the r, the se inc ide nts would permit the jury to f

ind a hostile work environme nt. See A mmerm an , 30 S.W .3d at 798 (stating that exis tence of hara ssment must be deter mined by “looking at all the circ um s t an ce s ”) (interna l qu o t a t i o nm ar

k s o m i t t e d ) ; W

i lliams v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 187 F.3d 553, 564 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (re versingsummary

judgment for def

endant on hostile environme nt claim beca use “a work environment view ed as a whole may

sati s fy t h e lega l definition of an abusive work environment . . . e ven thoug h no single episode” is sufficient).
F ina lly , th e se ve ri ty

and pe rv a siv e ne ss of

Cr e a c y ’s c on du c t r e a so na bly c ou ld ( and

a lle g e dly d i d ) i n t erf

ere with Hanley ’s work pe rfor mance . His sexually

themed comments a

bout Hanley ’s
c lot hin g take n a lon e a lte re d h e r w or k e nv ir on me nt, c a

us inghe r t o h a ve tr ou

ble de c idi ngho w t o
c lot he he rs e lf e a c h d ay . H is o the r b e havio r o nly a dd e d to the dis c omf

or t and of fe ns e c a us e d b y the se
rema rks. Hanle y ’s re action wa s not unreasona ble, as Scott’s te stimony supports the contention thatNo. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 8 - the work pla ce was highly sexually char g ed, and the small, tight-knit nature of the off ice understanda

bly heig htened the impac t of Crea cy ’s co n d u ct. Se e On c alev . S un do wne r O

ffs ho re Ser v s., Inc. , 523 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1998) (“ The re al social impac t of workplac e beha vior often de pends
on a c on ste llatio n o f s ur

ro un din g c ir c ums tanc e s, e xpe c tatio ns , a nd re latio ns hip s whi c h ar e no t f ull y captur ed by

a simple rec itation of the words used or the phy sical ac ts perfor

med.”)
. Kentucky prec edent lends support to this conclusion. I n Me y e rs , the plaintiff’s supe rvisor
us e d “ langua g e loa de d w ithob sc e nit y and se xua l innu e nd o, ” a dd re sse d s ome c omm e nts “ dir e c tly to” pla int if

f, su g g e ste d th a t w ome n w e re un fi t w or ke rs and g e ne ra lly

e x hib ite d a

“ se xua lly demea ning attitude towards women [that] pervaded the whole sale s operation.” 840 S.W .2d at 822. Me y e rs , indeed, would appea r to be the harde r ca se bec ause ( unlike here ) there was no e vidence that the p la in ti f

f ’ s s u p e r v is o r in it iate d p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t o r ma d e p h y s ic a ll y thr e a te n in g r e ma r ks. Cf. Amme rman , 30 S.W .3d at 800 (a ffirmingdismiss al of hostile work e nvironment claim bec ause “ a single off- color c omment . . . is lega lly insufficient to constitute ac tionable sexual harassment” ). By contra st, eac h of t he S ix th Circuit case s upon which the c ompany relies involves c onduct that fairly may be labeled as “ sporadic use of abusive la ng uag e, g ender -re lated jokes, a nd occa sional teasing .” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (inter nal quotation marks
o m i t t e d )
. InBlack v . Zaring Homes, Inc. , 104 F.3d 822 (6th Cir.), cert. de nied 522 U.S. 865 (1997), summary judgm en twa s gra n t edb ec au s e t h e c o mp l ai n ed -o f b eh av i o r c o n s i s t edo f “ m er el y offe nsive” comments made at twice-monthly meeting s over a

four- month period. Id. at 826–27. Not only wer e these c omments more isolated t h an C rea cy ’s alleg ed misbehavior, but the Black de fe nd ants a lsoNo. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 9 - failed to eng ag e in a

ny unwanted phy sical conta ct or make phy sically threatening rema

rks. Much the same c an be sa id for the de fenda nts in Mo rri

s v . O ldh am Cou nty

Fi sc al C ou rt , 2 01 F .3 d 7 84 (6 th Cir. 2000). Ther e, the c ourt aff irmed summary

judgme nt w h er e t h e “s u m total” of ac ts alleg ed included “se vera l dirty

jokes,” one “alleg ed ver

bal sexual advanc e,” a

“ one-time r e f e renc e to plaintiff as ‘Hot L ips’” and “ isolated comments about plaintiff’s state of dr ess.” Id. at 790 (emphasis added).
The c ompany ’s other a

rg u m ents g ener ally

g o to the weig ht of the hostile-environme nt
e vid e nc e , n ot t o it s e xiste nc e . Th e e mpl oy e r, fo r e xamp le , po int s to Ha nle y ’s ow n e ng a g e me nt i n activities of a se x ual nature to sug g est that Creac y ’s conduct could not have a ltered the conditions of he r e mpl oy

me nt. Ha nle y , it is tru e , a c kn ow le dg e s r e qu e sti ngEd die to p lay a vu lg ar s on g , b ri e fl y g oin g to a str ip cl ub wi th Cre a c y and his wi fe a t the ir ba c he lor /ba c he lor e tte pa

rt y , g oin g to a

n a du lt novelty store with Crea cy

and his wife on one night a s a joke a nd discussing the sexual content of
a mov ie at th e of

fi c e . No ne of the se inc ide nts , h ow e ve r, of fe rs any su g g e sti on

that H anle y

wo uld welcome phy sically

hara ssing conduct. And beca use a rea sonable jury could find that someone who
e ng a g e d in

the se a c tiv iti e s c ou ld nev e rt he le ss p e rc e ive Cr e a c y ’s c on du c t to c re a te a ho sti le environment a

nd that Hanley subjectively perc eived the e nvironment as abusive , her pa rticipation in sex ually related conduct does not defe at her claim. For simil ar r easons, the c ompany ’s alleg ations that f ina nc ia l pr ob le ms a

nd pr ob le ms w ithon e of

he r s on s ma

y have c on tr ibute d to Ha

nle y ’s dis tr e ss g o to the weig ht of her c laim, not to it s exi stence
. Th e c omp any

a lso a r g u e s t h a t H a n l e y ’ s d i s t r e s s ste mme d p ri mari ly

fr om h e r r e latio ns hip wi th Creac y ’s wife an d t h e im pact of the email discove ry , both of which (w e ag ree ) do not bea r on theNo. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 10 - ho sti le -w or

k- e nv ir on me nt c la im. I n o ne re sp e c t, t he c omp any

is r ig ht: Th e re c or d sh ow s that th e se inc ide nts ha d th e g re a te st impa c t on Hanle y , a s th e dis c ov e ry of the e ma ils in p art ic ula

r a pp are ntl y tr ig g e re d h e r w e ig ht l os s, sle e p tr ou ble and a bs e nc e fr om wo rk . But th is e xtre me le ve l of dis tr e ss is not required to pr evail on a hostile-work-e nvironment claim: After all, “Title VI Icomes into play befor e the hara ssing conduct l eads to a nervous brea kdown.” Ha rri

s , 510 U.S. at 22. Hanley ’s other alleg ations, and their a lleg ed af fec t on he r, suffice d to show that she subjectively perc eived the w ork
e nv ir on me nt a s h os til e . Wh ile the c omp any may ult imate ly

c on vin c e the jur

y tha t e ve n th e se e ff

e c ts
wer e primarily

cause d by

Hanley ’s re lationship with C rea cy ’s wife , it cannot do so as a matter of law on this recor d.
T h e compa

ny next contends that Creac y ’s sexually lace d stories should not enter into the equation bec ause Scott, not Hanley , testified t o them, and Hanley answe red “no” when asked at her deposition, “Other tha

n the claims of sex ual har assment that we’ ve talked a bout, are y ou asser

ting any additional claims o f d i s crimination that would not be of a sexual harassment var iety , treated differ ently

beca use y ou’re a woman ? ” J A 205–06. The r esponse, howe ver, indicates only that Ha nle y a grees th ere ar e no oth e r c la ims no t of a s e x ua l ha ra ssm e nt v ar ie ty , not that there a re no additional incidents of sexual hara ssment that she m ay have forg otten. Given Scott’s testimony that Hanley was pre sent when Cre acy told his st ories and g iven Hanle y ’s re action that the stories w ere ina pp ro pr ia te , w e se e no re a so n a t thi s po int to dis c ount the sto ri e s no r any re a so n w hy we sh ou ld hold Hanley ’s inability

to rec ount additional specific instances of Creac y ’s misbehavior a g ainst her. See Abeita v. Transamerica Mailings, Inc. , 159 F.3d 246, 252 (6th Cir. 1998) (re versingsummaryNo. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 11 - judgme nt for defenda

nt on hostile environment claim beca use “[ p]l aintiff’s inabilit y to rec ount any more spec ific instance s g oes to the we ight of her te stimony , a matter

for the f inder of f acts” )

.No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 12 - B. Hanley next ch alleng es the district cour t’s reje ction as a matter of law of her claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under Kentucky law, thi s tort involves conduct ( 1) that is “ int e ntion al or

re c kle ss, ” (2 ) t

hat is so “ ou tr a g e ou s a

nd int ole ra ble ” that it

of fe nd s “ g e ne ra lly
acc epted standa

rds of de cenc y

and mora lity ” and ( 3) that ca uses seve re emotional distress in the victim. Hu ma na of K

e ntu c k y , I nc . v . S e itz , 796 S.W .2d 1, 2–3 (Ky . 1990).
At stake is the sec ond element of the test. I n Ake rs v. Alve y , the Six th Circuit rever sed the decision of the district court g ranting summary judgme nt to the defe ndant on a Ke ntucky outrag eous conduct c laim. 338 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2003). There , plaintiff alle g ed that the de fenda nt had

“ e ng a g e d in

pe rv a siv e , se xua lly of

fe ns ive be havio r, inc lud ingthe makin g of le wd g e sture s w ithhis tongue and hand while moaning , commenting daily about [her] phy sique (such a s ‘nice a ss’), g etting very close to [her] and attempting to look down he r blouse, question ing [her] extensively about masturbation and he r sex-life with her boy friend, e x pressing i n front of othe r employ ees that he would like to have se x ual interc ourse with [ her], commenting to [her] about her cowor kers’ sexual his tor ie s a

nd ph y siq ue s, c omm and e e ri ng[he r] c omp ute r t o s e nd se xua lly e xplic it e -m a il m e ssa g e s, and descr ibing his la st e pisode of oral sex in g reat de tail. [She] alleg ed that [he] eng ag ed in over 30 acts of ina ppropriate behavior

in a two-a

nd-a- half month period.” Id. at 494. I n W athen v. Ge neral El e c tri c Co ., 115 F.3d 400 ( 6th Cir. 1997), on the other hand, the Six th Circ uit affirme d summaryNo. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 13 - judgme nt for the employ er in a setti ng wher e the c ompany ’s upper -leve l manag ement had subje cted plaintiff to “sexual jokes, comments, and innuendos.” Id. at 402. Th e c ourt he ld t hat th is c on du c t,

“ wh ile c ru de and who ll y inap pr op ri a te , d oe s n ot r ise to t he le ve l of

the ‘a tr oc iou s a

nd utt e rl y intolerable’ as a matter of law .” Id. at 407. Her e, while Creac y ’s conduct does not rise to the level of the c onduct in Ak

e rs , it is c e rt a inl y

mor e se ve re tha

n th e “ jok e s, c omm e nts , a

nd inn ue nd os ” alleg ed in W

athen
. Th e ho ldi ng s o f o the r c a se s h e lp t o c lari fy the a dmi tte dly imp re c ise lin e be tw e e n a c tio na ble and nonac tionable conduc t in this are a. Compare Osborne v . Payne , 31 S.W .3d 911, 914 (Ky . 2000) (re versing s u m m ary

judgme nt for def

endant whe re “ former

priest used his re lationship with t he husband and wi fe to obtain a sexual affa ir with the wife” ); W ilson v. Lowe’s Home Cente r , 75 S.W .3d 229, 238 (K

y . Ct. App. 2001) (re versingsummary judgme nt where employ ee “ was subjec ted to rac ial rema

rks on nea

rl y a d ai l y b as i s by

his coworke rs and supe rvisors for a period of
a pp ro xima te ly

se ve n y e ars ” ); an d B re we r v . H illar d , 15 S.W .3d 1, 6–7 (Ky . Ct. App. 1999) (conduc t
ou tr a g e ou s w he n e mpl oy e e wa s “ su bje c te d to fr e qu e nt i nc ide nts of le wd name c a lli ngc ou ple d w ith multipl e unsol icited and unwanted reque sts for homosexual sex ”), with Ar lin gh au s v . G all e ns te in , 115 S.W .3d 351, 352 (Ky
. Ct. App. 2003) (af firming summary

judgme nt for def

endant, a priest, who impreg nated the w ife of one of his parishioners); Allen v. Clemons , 9 20 S.W. 2d 88 4, 88 5 ( Ky . Ct
. App. 1996) (beha

vior not sufficiently

outrag eous whe n defe ndant “e rec ted a sig n . . . which stated, ‘Da ng er—Child

M o le s te r in the Communi ty ’”) . The pe rvasivene ss and seve rity of Crea cy ’s conduc t suffice s in this i nstance to establish a triable issue of fac t on the question.No. 05-6517

Hanley v . Chevy

Chaser Magazine

- 14 - Creac y contends that the Kentucky Civil Rights Act oc cupies the f ield of work- related
e mot ion a l di str e ss c la ims and thu s p re e mpt s any

tor t c la im a g a in st him s e e kin g sim ila r d a ma g e s. Th e Ac t, h ow e ve r, on ly “ su bs ume s” ou tr a g e ou s- be havio r c la ims a g a ins t e mpl oy e rs , n ot i nd ivi du a ls. See W ilson , 75 S.W .3d at 239 (holdi ng that KCRA pree mpts outrag e claim ag ainst employ er, but not individuals; “the fac t that a civil rig hts claim m ay be filed a g ainst an employ er doe s not prohibit the fi li n go f an[o u t r a g e ] c l a i m a g a i n s tt h e o f f e n d i n g i n d i v i d

u a l s a g a i n s tw h o m n o c i v i l r i g h t s c l a im could have been filed”). Be cause Hanley filed her outrag eous-c onduct claim ag ainst Creac y , not the company , the Act doe s not preempt it.
III
. Fo r t h es e re as o n s , we re v er s e an d re m an d t h e cas e to t h e di s t ri ct co u rt fo r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent with this opi nion.