Case Name: Marie PFAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William REED, In His Official Capacity as Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1999-02-08
Citations: 167 F.3d 228
Docket Number: No. 96-50916
Parties: Marie PFAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William REED, In His Official Capacity as Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 167
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
Marie PFAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William REED, In His Official Capacity as Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 96-50916.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 8, 1999.
Bruce A. Coane, Coane & Associates, Jon Allan Haslet, Watts & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ernest Carlos Garcia, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Paula Ann Brantner, San Francisco, CA, Don D. Sessions, Mission Viejo, CA, for National Employment Lawyers Ass’n, Amicus Curiae.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of its recent decisions in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). See Pfau v. Reed, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 32, 142 L.Ed.2d 24 (1998), vacating 125 F.3d 927 (5th Cir.1997). Having reviewed these decisions and the parties' supplemental briefs, we reinstate part 11(A) of our prior opinion and AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of plaintiff-appellant Marie Pfau's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Pfau v. Reed, 125 F.3d 927, 932-34 (5th Cir.1997). The district court should reconsider its decision to grant summary judgment on Pfau's claims of sexual harassment in the light of Faragher and Ellerth. Without intending to limit the scope of that reconsideration, the district court should address the issue of whether Pete Gonzales was Pfau's supervisor under Far-agher and Ellerth and, if so, whether the defendant-appellee has established the affirmative defense outlined in those cases. Further discovery on those issues may be required. Without in any way intimating our view as to the merits of Pfau's claims, we VACATE the district court's grant of summary judgment on Pfau's sexual harassment claims and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part. Each party shall bear its own costs.