Case Name: Patricia DAVID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., William Thomas, National Assistance Bureau, Inc., a.k.a. Gardendale Nursing Home, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-08-29
Citations: 120 F.3d 1199
Docket Number: No. 96-7034
Parties: Patricia DAVID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., William Thomas, National Assistance Bureau, Inc., a.k.a. Gardendale Nursing Home, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON , Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 120
Pages: 1199–1199

Head Matter:
Patricia DAVID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., William Thomas, National Assistance Bureau, Inc., a.k.a. Gardendale Nursing Home, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-7034.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 29, 1997.
Stephen A. Strickland, Cecilee R. Beasley, Richard S. Jaffe, Richard S. Jaffe, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Lawrence B. Clark, Jolee Hancock Bollinger, Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, AL, for SmithKline Beeeham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
David M. Loper, Campbell & Waller, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for National Assistance Bureau & William Thomas.
Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON , Senior Circuit Judge.
Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
With respect to the summary judgment in favor of SmithKline, we assume arguendo, but need not decide, that an employer may be liable under some circumstances in a case involving harassment of an employee, not by the employer or its employees, but by a third person. However, we conclude on this record that SmithKline's response to plaintiff's reports of harassment was reasonable in light of the options available to SmithKline.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. Plaintiff's other arguments on appeal are without merit and warrant no discussion.