FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUG 30 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1506 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00448 -CV -BH CORA ARM STRONG, SA DI E S IMS, KINNIE SIMP SON, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us STANDARD FURNITURE, THOMAS CASKEY, EDDIE DEN SON, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 30, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Appe llants , Co ra

A rm str ong, S ad ie S im s, and K inn ie S im pson , c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o Appe lle e St an dard F ur nit ur e on the ir Ti t l e V II cl ai m s fo r h o s t i l e w o rken v i ro n m en t . Th ey al s o ap p ea l th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o Appe lle es S tandard F ur nit ur e, T hom as Ca ske y , and E ddi e D en son on p la int if fs ’ A la ba m a tort l awc la im s. F or the r ea sons se t f

orth b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm th e d i s t r i c tc o u rto n th e T i t l e V I I c l a i m an dth e t o rtl a wc l a i ms against Standard Furniture. W e also aff irm the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent to Caskey

on all tort law c laim s. W e af firm the grant of sum

m ary j udgm en t t o D en son on the pla int if fs ’ c la im s of

outra ge . H ow ev er , w e re ve rs e the d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s g ra n to f s u m m ary ju d g m en t

t o De n s o n wi t h re s p ec tt o Arm s t ro n g ’s a n dS i ms ’s i n v a s i o n o f

p r i v a c y c l a i ms an dA rms t r o n g ’s a s s au l t - a n d
- b a t t e ry c l a i m.

I. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that no ne of

the pla int if

fs c oul d e sta

bli sh the existence of a hostile work environm ent. W e need not decide this iss ue, bec ause, ev ena ssum ing arg ue ndo that S tandard F ur nit ur e w as ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t, the plaintiffs will not prevail. When a plaintiff has established a hos tile work en vir onm en t ba se d onasup er vis or ’ s a ct ion s, the de fe ndant e m plo y er c anput f orth an aff irm ative defense to avoid liabilit y . T o prevail on its affirm ative defense, St an dard F ur nit ur e m ust de m onstrate : “ (a ) that i t t ook re as ona ble ste ps b othto3

pr ev en t se xua l hara ssm en t and t o r em edy the se xua lly

hara ssi ng c ondu ct

pr om ptl y once it was brought to the em ploy er’ s attention, and (b) that the victim ized em ploy ee unreasonably

failed to avoid harm

or utilize any

rem edial oppo rtunities
m ad e av ai la

ble by the e m plo y er . ” D ee s v. Joh nsonCo ntr ols W or ld S er vs. , I nc . , 168 F.3 d 4 17 , 42 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . T he f ir st p ro ng o f the te st l ooks to w he the r the e m plo y er too k r ea sona

ble steps to p revent sexual harassm ent. U sually , a lthou gh no t necessarily , the e m ploy er w ill sho wthat i t ha d an e sta bli she d anti -h ar as sm en t po lic y . T he part ie s do not dis put e that S tandard

F ur nit ur e ha d an anti -h ar as sm en t po lic y . H ow ev er , the existence of a sexual hara ssm ent policy does not auto m atically

satisfy an em plo y er ’ s burd en . F re de ri ck v. S pr int/U nit ed

Mg m t. Co . , 246 F . 3d 1 305, 131 4 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ; F ar ag he r v. Ci ty of Bo ca Raton , 524 U . S. 775 , 808 , 118 S . Ct . 2275 , 229 3, 141 L . E . 2d 6 62 ( de ny ing an e m plo y er the a ff ir m at ive de fe nse w he re it had entirely

failed to dissem inate its anti-harassm ent policy am ong it s em

ploy ees). St an dard F ur nit ur e al so m

ust pr ove that the pol ic y

w as e ff ec tiv el y pub lis he d, that i t contained reasonable com plaint procedures, and that it contained no other fatal defect. Fre derick, 246 F.3d at 1314 . This Circ uit has required an em ploy er’ s policy to p er m it em plo y ee s to by

pa ss h ar as sin g su

pe rv iso rs . S ee W al tonv. Joh nson& John son Se rv s. , I nc . , 347 F . 3d 1 272, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ; M adray v. P ubl ix4

Supe rm ark et s, In c., 20 8 F .3d12 90 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). All three plaintiffs adm it that they had rece ived copies of Standard Furn iture ’ s anti -h ar as sm en t po lic y and kne whowto re port hara ssm en t. A ll the pl ai nt iff s at te nd edEEO/Ant i-Ha ras sm en t cl as se s o n m or e th an on e o ccas io n. N one the le ss, the y

f ai le d to a va il the m se lve s of S tandard F ur nit ur e’ s anti
hara ssm en t p oli cy . Whe n th e pla int if fs f ina lly did r ep ort hara ssm ent, the ha ras sm en t ce as ed , whi ch su gg es ts a fu nc ti on in g a nt i-h aras sm en t p ol ic y . A . S ad ie S im s. InJul y of 200 3, S im s c om

pla ine d to he r supe rv iso r, D er ri ck Bi shop about hara ssm en t by

T hom as Ca ske y . B ish op r ep orte d th e ch ar ge to Jos h R udd, the Hum an Resources Manager. Rudd then sp oke to Sim s about Caskey . S im s never m en tio ne d any

hara ssm en t by

D en son to R

udd. S im s a cknow le dge d th at she ha d no p r o b l e ms w i t h C a s k e y o r D e n s o n a f

t e r h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h R

u d d . S i ms c l a i ms that sh e did

not r ep ort D en son’ s hara ssm en t be ca use she did

not tr ust Ru dd b ec au se he a llo w ed

D en son to c ont inu e w orkin g de spi te a lle ga tio ns o f hara ssm en t i n a pr ev iou s law sui t. Ru dd, how ev er , inv es tig at ed S im s’ s c la im s a ga ins t C as ke y and she adm its that all harassm ent ceased af ter his investig ation. T herefor e, Sim s has presented no evidence that creates an issu e of m aterial f act as to w hether Standard Furn iture ’ s hara ssm en t po lic y w as ine ff

ec tiv e. H er

f ai lur e to r ep ort hara ssm en t5

under the poli cy

wa s unreasonable. B. Co ra Arm st ro ng . A rm str ong ne ve r ini tiate d c ont ac t w ithRu dd a bout hara ssm en t. Rathe r, Ru dd co nta ct ed he r in July , 200 3 w he n he w as inv es tig at ing S ad ie S im s’ s c la im s a ga ins t Ca ske y . A rm str ong co m

pla ine d to Ru dd a

bout hara ssm en t by

Ca ske y . A rm str ong adm its that C as ke y

did not hara ss h er

a ft er that t im e. L at er , in May

200 4, Ru dd asked Arm strong h ow things were goin g. A rm strong to ld Rudd th at another em plo y ee ha d to ld Arm str ong that D en son ha d li ck ed his li ps s ugge sti ve ly

w hil e look ing at Arm strong. Ar m strong d id not com

plain to Rud d about anyother aspect of De nson ’ s behavior, although she now claim s that his h arassm ent of her w as extrem e. Rudd followed up on the com plaint abou t De nson by

asking th e other em plo y ee , S im

pson , about

the inc ide nt i n w hic h D en son lic ke d hi s li ps. S im pson re porte d th at

D en son ha d li ck ed

his li ps b ec au se the y

w er e dr y and tha t sh e sawno se xu al co nd uc t i n t he act . Ar m strong n ever c om

plained to Rud d, or any

other supervisor at Standard Furniture, about Denson’s har assm ent. A rm strong claim s that she didnot report De nson ’ s harassm ent because she believed her em ploym ent would be term inated fo r co m pla ini ng. H ow ev er , A rm str ong ha s po int ed to no e vid en ce to supp ort this be lie f. S he ha s po int ed

to no o the r em

plo y ee w ho s uf

fe re d an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t6

action for re porting harassm ent. S he asserts that De nson had the power to fir e her, but of fe rs no e vid en ce that sh e w oul d be f ir ed if she r ep orte d D en son’ s be ha vio r to Ru dd. T his Ci rc uit

ha s he ld tha t “ ab se nt a

c re dib le thr eat of

r et al ia tio n . . . [ the em ploy ee’ s] subjective f

ears of reprisal do not excuse her failure to report [her supe rv iso r’ s] a lle ge d hara ssm en t. ” W al tonv. Joh nson& John son Se rv s. , I nc . , 347 F. 3d 12 72, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2003). C. K inn ie S im

pson . Sim pson has not claim ed that she was har assed by any one at Standard Furn iture . Rathe r, she c la im s to be a“ w itn es s” to supp ort A rm str ong’ s c la im s of hara ssm en t. T he re fo re , he r T itl e V II c la im f ai ls. Mo re ove r, e ve n a ssum ing ar gue ndo a host ile w ork e nvi ro nm en t, S im psonf ai le d to take a dvanta ge of St an dard F ur nit ur e’ s anti -h ar as sm en t po lic y . S he ne ve r co m pla ine d to any one about harassm ent directed at her . F urther, the evidence establishes that her failure to r ep ort hara ssm en t w as unr ea sona ble . Ru dd i nve sti ga te d a ll co m pla int s m ad e by the oth er pla int if fs and the y

a gr ee that hara ssm en t c ea se d a ft er the ir c om pla int s. Si m psonha s po int ed

to nothin g th at

w oul d e xc use he r duty

to re port hara ssm en t u n d e r S t a n d a r dF u rn i tu r e ’s p o l i c y. II. Th e p l a i n t i f

f s a l l e g e av a r i e t y o f

Al a b a ma t o rtc l a i ms a g a i n s tC a s k e y,We conclude that none of the pla intiffs can e stablish that Denson or Caskey is liable for 1 the tort of outra g e. The ref ore, Standa

rd F urniture a lso is not l iable for outrag e. 7 De nson , and Standard Furniture. W e af firm the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t t o S tandard

F ur nit ur e an d C as ke y

on a ll cl ai m s. W e af

fi rm the gr an t of s u m m ary ju d g m en tt o De n s o n wi t h re s p ec tt o th e p l ai n t i ff s ’ cl ai m s fo r o u t ra g e. We 1
re v er s e t h e g ra n to f s u m

m ary ju d g m en twi t h re s p ec tt o Arm s t ro n g ’s an dSi m s ’s inv as ionof

pr iva cy c la im s a ga ins t D en son, and A rm str ong’ s c la im f or a ssa ult -andb a t t e ry. A . I n v a s i o n o f

P r i v a c y Pl ai nti ff s A rm str ong an d S im s a sse rt ac la im f or inv as ionof

pr iva cy a ga ins t D en son, Ca ske y , and S tandard F ur nit ur e. U nde r A la

ba m a law , the re are f

our w ro ngs that c anc onst itu te inv as ionof pr iva cy : “ (1 ) the intru sio n up on the plaintiff’ s phy sical solitu de or seclusion; (2) pub licity which violates the ordinary de ce nc ie s; ( 3) puttin g th e pla int if f in a f al se but not ne ce ssari ly

de fam at or

y pos iti on i n th e p ub l i c e ye; an d(4 ) t h e ap p ro p ri at i o no f s o m e e l emen to f t h e p l ai n t i ff ’s pe rs on al it y

fora co m

m erci al us e.” Ph il li ps v. Sm al le y Mai nt en an ce Se rv s., In c., 435 So . 2d 7 05, 708 ( A la . 198 3) . S im s and A rm str ong as se rt that the de fe ndants in tru de d upo n t he ir p hysic al so li tu de . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t D en son an d C as ke y did not intru de upo n th e8

pla int if fs ’ sol itu de be ca

use the y did not se ek inf orm at ionabout

the pla int if

fs ’ personal lives. How ever, the Ala bam a Suprem e Court has held that severe sexual hara ssm en t c anbe an inva sio n of pr iva cy . S ee Bu sby

v. T ru sw al S y s. Co rp . , 551 So . 2d 3 22, 324 ( A la . 198 9) . A cc ep tin g A rm str ong’ s and S im s’ s de posi tio n t e s t i mo n y a s tr

u e , aju ry c o u l df

i n dth a tDe n s o n i n v a d e dth e p l a i n t i f f s ’ p r i v a c y. A cc or din g to A rm str ong, D en son re gul ar ly ( 1) m ad e se xua l c om

m en ts i n th e w orkpl ac e; ( 2) st at ed

“ da ily ” that he w an te d to have se x w ithA rm str ong; ( 3) groped Arm strong while she was w orking; and (4) re gularly inqui red w hether Ar m strong was m enstruating b ecause he w anted som e “ cat. ” Sim s testified that D en son w oul d ( 1) c onst an tly ta lk a bout se x; ( 2) r eg ularl y

br ush up a ga ins t he r; ( 3) co m m en t ab ou t h er l eg s; an d (4 ) co m e up t o S im s “ li ck in g h is to ng ue ou t” at h er. A j ury could find th at D enson in truded upo n Arm strong’s and Sim s’ s sex lives in an of fen si ve m an ne r an d, t he refo re, i nv ad edth ei r ri gh t t o p riv acy. The plaintiffs, however, have not m ade out a case f or invasion of privacy ag ai nst Ca ske y . A rm str ong te sti fi ed that C as ke y : ( 1) onc e state d th at he w oul d handcuff her to a bed; and (2) once c omm ented on her underwear when it w as vis ibl e. S im s te sti fi ed

that C as ke y : ( 1) a ske d S im s ou t a ft er w ork; ( 2) a ske d S im s to g i v e h i m S p a n i s h l e s s o n s ; an d( 3 ) a s k e dS i ms t o j o i n ac h u r c h v o l l e yb a l l t e a m. Th e s e c l a i ms d o n o tr i s e t o th e l e v e l o f an i n v a s i o n o f

p r i v a c y.9

T he pla int if

fs a lso have not

sho w n th at

S tandard F ur nit ur e co uld be he ld lia ble f or D en son’ s c ondu ct . U nde r A la ba m a law , an e m

plo y er is lia ble f or the int en tio na l t orts o f its e m plo y ee s on ly

if “ (1 ) the e m

plo y ee ’ s a ct s are c om

m itt ed in furthe ranc e of

the bus ine ss o f the e m

plo y er ; ( 2) the e m

plo y ee ’ s a ct s are w ith in the lin e an d sc ope of

his e m plo ym en t; or

( 3) the e m

plo y er part ic ipate d in , auth or iz ed , or r at if ie d th e tortio us a ct s. ” E x P ar te A tm or e Co m

m uni ty H osp. v. H ay es , 719 So.2d 1190, 1194 (A la. 1998 ). Plaintiffs ar gue that Standard Furniture ratif ied De nson ’ s conduct. An em ploy er r atifies conduct when the em ploy er “ (1) had actual know le dge of

the tor tio us c ondu ct

of the of fe ndi ng e m

plo y ee and the tor

tio us conduct was directed at and visit ed upon the com plainin g em

ploy ee; (2) that based upon his kno wledge, the em ploy er knewor shouldhave known that such cond uct constitu ted sexual harassm ent and/or a continu ing to rt; and (3) that the em ploy er failed to take ‘ adequate’ steps to rem edy the situation .” Potts v. BE & K Constr. Co ., 60 4 S o.2 d 3 98 , 40 0 (Al a. 19 92 ). Fo r th e rea so ns we ex pl ai ne d i n o urdi sc us si on of t he Tit le VII cl ai m s, we holdthat Standard Furniture did not ratify any harassing condu ct. Standard Furn iture ha d no kno w le dge of hara ssm en t by

D en son. O nc e inf

orm ed of the ch ar ge s a ga ins t C as ke y , S tandard F ur nit ur e inv es tig at ed

the sit ua tio n and a ll hara ssm en t c ea se d. S ee E x P ar te A tm or e Co m

m uni ty H osp. , 719 S o. 2d at 11 95For the same r easons, we conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to e stablish that 2 Standard F urniture is liable for neg lige nt supervision or re tention.

10 (“ [W ] he re the spe ci fi c tortio us c ondu ct s st ops af te r co rr ec tiv e ac tio n by

the em plo y er , thi s C ourt ha s he ld tha t the c or re ct ive a ct ionis ad equa te a s am atte r of law . ”) . S tandard

F ur nit ur e ha d af

unc tio nin g, pub lic iz ed

anti -h ar as sm en t po lic y

of
w hic h pl ai nti ff

s w er e aw ar e. P la int if

fs f ai le d to a va il the m se lve s of that po lic y

and, co nse que ntl y , S tandard

F ur nit ur e is n ot l ia

ble f or the a lle ge d hara ssm en t by D e n s o n o r

C a s k e y. 2 B. Assault-and-Batter

y A rm str ong as se rt s th at

D en son ha s c om

m itt ed a ssa ult -and- ba tte ry

be ca use D en son gr ope d he r in the w orkpl ac e in an un w el co m e m an ne r. I n an a ssa ult -andbattery action a plaintiff m

ust prov e “ (1) that the defendant touched the plaint iff; (2) that the defendant intended to to uch the plainti ff; and (3) that the touchi ng was co nduc te d inaharm fu l or of fe nsi ve m an ne r. ” H ar

pe r v. W ins tonCo unty , 892 So . 2d 3 46, 353 ( A la . 200 4) . A rm str ong te sti fi ed that D en son gr ope d he r at w ork, an d th at she c onsi de re d th is t ouc hin g to be unw el co m e. A lth oughthe re is co ntr ad ic tor

y e vid en ce in the r ec or d, on s um m ar y j udgm en t w e w ill not

m ak e credibility

determ ination s. A ccordingly , Arm strong h as cre ated an issue of m aterial f a c ta s t o wh e t h e r

De n s o n c o mm i t t e da s s au l t - a n d
- b a t t e ry.Appellants’ r equest for oral a rgument is denied. 3 11 H o w e v e r , f

o r th e s a me r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e dwi t h r e s p e c tt o i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y, w e co nc lud e that the re is no b as is f or hol din g S tandard

F ur nit ur e lia ble f or De nson ’ s conduct. Ar

m strong failed to report Denson’ s conduct, and Standard Furniture had no oth er notice. Ac cordingly , w e af firm the grant of sum

m ary jud gm en t t o S ta nd ardFu rn it ur e o n Arm st ro ng ’s cla im forass au lt -an d- ba tt ery. Ther efore, Ar

m strong andSim s m ay

proceed w ith their invasi on of privacy cl ai m s a ga ins t D en son pe rs ona lly . A rm str ong al so m ay pr oc ee d w ithhe r as sault
and-battery

claim against Denson personally . T he district court’ s summ ary j udgm en t or de r is a ff

irm ed a s to a ll oth er

c la im s. F or

the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r is AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART, an d REMANDED. 3