Opinion ID: 3049613
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability under a hostile environment theory

Text: Craig alternatively could sustain her Title VII action under a hostile work environment theory of liability. To make a prima facie case of a hostile work environment, a person must show “that: (1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). Additionally, “[t]he working environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive.” Id. (citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 20-21 (1993)). Objective hostility is determined by examining the totality of CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9523 the circumstances and whether a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the victim would perceive the workplace as hostile. Id. Finally, to find a violation of Title VII, “conduct must be extreme to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788; see also Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527. [4] An employer may be vicariously liable under a hostile environment theory when the harassment is perpetrated by a supervisor “with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. When no “tangible employment action” (such as firing or demotion) is taken, an employer may avoid liability by asserting a “reasonable care” defense. An employer can sustain the affirmative defense if it shows by the preponderance of the evidence “(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Id.; see also Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1177. Reviewing the record de novo to determine whether summary judgment was proper, we conclude that there are sufficient triable issues of fact to overcome summary judgment with respect to Craig’s prima facie case, and that The Mahoney Group did not successfully assert the “reasonable care” affirmative defense.
Byrd’s conduct clearly satisfies the first two prongs of the Fuller test. Byrd’s behavior was explicitly sexual in nature, and unwelcome, as Craig repeatedly rebuffed his advances and eventually reported his conduct to the company. We also find that Byrd’s conduct meets the requirement of being both subjectively and objectively abusive. Craig testified that she felt Byrd’s comments and actions—particularly the incident in the bathroom—were abusive and made her feel uncomfortable. The conduct also met the objective standard: A reason9524 CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. able woman in Craig’s position could feel that Byrd’s comments and actions were hostile, demeaning and abusive. [5] Craig’s prima facie showing turns on whether or not Byrd’s actions were pervasive and serious enough to amount to “a change in the terms and conditions of employment.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788. The Supreme Court has cautioned that “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.”2 Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist., 975 F.2d 588, 590 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (finding “isolated incidents of sexual horseplay” insufficient to make a working environment “hostile”). Appellees draw our attention to some of our prior cases to suggest that conduct must be more egregious than Byrd’s in order to sustain an action under Title VII. See, e.g., Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 96768 (9th Cir. 2002) (involving a plaintiff who was raped three times in one night by a business associate whose actions were essentially condoned by the employer); Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1998) (involving an employee who made sexual remarks to a female co-worker over the loudspeakers at work and commented about her body to male co-workers). Although these shocking examples amply illustrate a level of conduct that is sufficient, they do not establish minimum behavior. We are not persuaded that Title VII requires proof of such severe or shocking behavior. [6] We have repeatedly held that sexual-based conduct that is abusive, humiliating or threatening is sufficient to make a prima facie claim under Title VII and have found liability in 2 Factors a court may consider are “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9525 situations where the conduct was much less onerous than Byrd’s propositions. See, e.g., Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 873, 880 (9th Cir. 1991) (reversing a summary judgment grant for the employer, finding that a reasonable woman could find a colleague’s misguided “love letter” hostile and abusive, and holding that “[w]ell-intentioned compliments by coworkers or supervisors can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action”); Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1461-63 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversing a grant of summary judgment where a plaintiff’s supervisor called her “offensive names based on her gender,” confronted her in front of other employees and customers and criticized her using derogatory, gender-based language); Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1522, 1527-28 (reversing a grant of summary judgment for the defendant city, finding that the behavior of plaintiff’s exboyfriend—repeatedly calling her house and hanging up, threatening to kill himself, running her off the road and getting her unlisted number—constituted an actionable claim under Title VII). [7] Byrd’s conduct falls somewhere between mere isolated incidents or offhand comments, which do not amount to a Title VII claim, see, e.g., Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000); Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000), and serious and pervasive harassment, that clearly comes within Title VII, see, e.g., Draper, 147 F.3d at 1105-06. Although Byrd’s actions were physically less threatening than those at issue in Fuller, Byrd’s position as Craig’s immediate boss made his actions emotionally and psychologically threatening; repeated pressure to perform sexual favors for one’s boss is certainly more coercive than the misguided “love letter” at issue in Ellison. Craig was not subjected to Byrd’s comments and propositions for a period of years, however, the time period over which it occurred was not de minimis. The harassing behavior included repeated comments several months before the bathroom encounter and included at least four significant incidents after. Byrd’s actions, when viewed from his perspective, 9526 CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. might seem innocuous enough, but when viewed from the perspective of a “reasonable woman,” his behavior could be understood to be so obnoxious that it “unreasonably interferes with work performance” and, consequently, “can alter a condition of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Ellison, 924 F.2d at 877; see also Steiner, 25 F.3d at 1463. [8] Craig alleges that Byrd’s actions resulted in a concrete change in her working environment. Specifically, she alleges she was removed from many of her duties, received budgets late, had some of her duties reassigned, and was forced to interact with Byrd despite his continued propositions. She claims that these additional stresses in the workplace made her nervous, spawned anxiety attacks and affected her health. Each of her complaints standing alone might not satisfy the standard, but in the aggregate, they are sufficiently serious to amount to an alteration in her condition of employment. We do not know if Craig’s claim will ultimately persuade the trier of fact. However, when viewing the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we conclude that Craig has alleged sufficient facts to state a prima facie case for a violation of Title VII.
[9] The Mahoney Group argues that even if Craig has alleged sufficient facts to support her Title VII claim, because Craig did not suffer “tangible employment action,” it is entitled to assert an affirmative defense. See Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 148-49 (2004); Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1168-69. As we previously pointed out, there are two steps to proving a “reasonable care” affirmative defense. First, the employer must show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior. Second, the employer must show that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9527 After examining the record, we hold that The Mahoney Group satisfied the first prong of the affirmative defense—that the company “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior.” Id. Specifically, the company had a mechanism in place for filing complaints about sexual harassment. When Craig finally did complain, The Mahoney Group addressed the situation promptly: It told Byrd to stay away from Craig, hired outside counsel to investigate and make recommendations, had Craig report to another individual other than Byrd and conducted sexual harassment training.3 These responsible and prompt actions satisfy the first prong of the test. [10] The company’s affirmative defense fails on the second prong, however, because The Mahoney Group cannot show that Craig “unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Id. at 807. The Mahoney Group argues that Craig unreasonably delayed reporting the harassment because she waited until August 27, 2003 to file a complaint with the company, some 19 days after the incident at the restaurant; it suggests that if Craig had reported the behavior earlier, it is quite possible that Byrd would not have made the subsequent phone calls or repeatedly propositioned her at work. However, we do not think that in this situation a 19-day delay is unreasonable; an employee in Craig’s position may have hoped the situation would resolve itself without the need of filing a formal complaint, and she justifiably may have delayed reporting in hopes of avoiding what she perceived could be adverse—or at least unpleasant—employment consequences. Additionally, Craig’s behavior is even more reasonable when one considers that Byrd’s behavior continued until at least August 20, 2003. 3 Craig alleges that the investigation the company undertook was a “sham” and alleges that outside counsel failed to interview several individuals Craig claimed had also been harassed by Byrd. Because The Mahoney Group’s affirmative defense fails on the second prong, we need not address this issue, although it may be a relevant inquiry on remand. 9528 CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. We cannot see how a delay of a mere seven days (including the weekend) rises to the level of being “unreasonable.” Craig’s delay is markedly different from cases where victims have allowed the harassment to continue for a period of months or years before finally reporting it to the appropriate authority. See, e.g., Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1178 (noting that the plaintiff waited a full two years from the first sexual incident and a full year after she testified the sexual activity was unwelcome before reporting the behavior); Montero v. AGCO Corp., 192 F.3d 856, 863 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding a two-year delay in reporting the conduct to be unreasonable); see also Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1180-82 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that failure to report the behavior to the company was unreasonable). [11] We hold that The Mahoney Group’s affirmative defense fails, as Craig’s minor delay in reporting the behavior did not meet the stringent standard outlined in Faragher. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for The Mahoney Group and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as to whether Craig should prevail on this claim upon remand. C. Craig’s Title VII Claim Against Roberts and Byrd [12] We have long held that Title VII does not provide a separate cause of action against supervisors or co-workers. See Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1179; Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 1998); Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993). Consequently, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Patricia Roberts and Leon Byrd on Craig’s Title VII claim. D. Craig’s State Law Claims Finally, we address Craig’s various state law claims. CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9529 1. Intentional infliction of emotional distress [13] Craig first claims damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To establish a prima facie case, Craig must demonstrate (1) Appellees engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct;” (2) Appellees either intended to cause “emotional distress or reckless disregard of the near certainty that such distress will result from [Appellees’] conduct;” and (3) Craig suffered “severe emotional distress” as a result of Appellees’ conduct. Wallace v. Casa Grande Union High Sch. Dist. No. 82 Bd. of Governors, 909 P.2d 486, 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). To satisfy the first prong, the conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Cluff v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 460 P.2d 666, 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969), overruled on other grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 783 P.2d 781 (Ariz. 1989). Drawing all inferences in Craig’s favor, U.S. ex rel. Anderson, 52 F.3d at 815, Craig has made a prima facie showing with respect to the second and third prongs; the relevant questions is whether Byrd’s conduct was so “outrageous” to satisfy the standard articulated in Wallace and Cluff. We conclude that it was and reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Appellees argue that Craig’s claim is “similar to the many other sets of facts courts have rejected as ‘outrageous.’ ” However, the cases they cite are instances involving behavior that a reasonable finder of fact could find less “outrageous” than Byrd’s actions. See, e.g., Cluff, 460 P.2d at 668 (finding no IIED claim in “the act of an insurance adjuster in simply contacting a person to whom his company may be liable in order to obtain a settlement of that claim, even after retention of counsel”); Wallace, 909 P.2d at 495 (affirming a grant of summary judgment on an IIED claim because “recommendations and decisions on nonrenewal of [plaintiff’s] administrator contract, the changing of her duties and the reduction of her salary” were lawful and not “outra9530 CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. geous”); Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 888 P.2d 1375, 1386-87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) (finding that the dismissal of an employee in front of the news media was not conduct that would sustain an IIED claim); Mintz v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int’l, Inc., 905 P.2d 559, 562-64 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (finding that termination decisions are generally insufficient to directly raise an IIED claim and holding that defendant’s “failing to promote Plaintiff, forcing her to return to work, and hand delivering a letter to her while in the hospital” was not “extreme” or “outrageous” conduct). [14] The Restatement of Torts, cited with approval by the Cluff, Mintz, and Nelson courts suggests that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Byrd’s conduct rises to the level of outrageousness: The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where someone’s feelings are hurt. There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion, and some safety valve must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam. Restatement 2d of Torts, § 46, comment (d). Byrd’s behavior did not comprise “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Despite society’s “rough edges,” Craig should not be required to become “hardened to” her supervisor repeatedly propositioning inside and outside of the office, following her into the bathroom, standing outside the toilet stall and then grabbing her and sticking his tongue in her mouth. While this conduct is CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9531 deplorable in any setting, a reasonable observer or trier of fact could find it to be “outrageous” and “extreme,” particularly in an employment context. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Byrd on Craig’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. [15] Arizona law is clear, however, that an employer is rarely liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when one employee sexually harasses another. Liability for the employer typically attaches only when a company utterly fails to investigate or remedy the situation. See, e.g., Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580, 585-86 (Ariz. 1987); Smith v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 876 P.2d 1166, 117374 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). The Mahoney Group did not abdicate its duty to investigate and take remedial measures once Craig reported Byrd’s conduct. We conclude that Craig has not met the high standard under Arizona law and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Mahoney Group and Patricia Roberts on this claim. 2. Negligent investigation, hiring, supervision and retention [16] Craig next asserts two related claims: negligent investigation and negligent hiring, supervision and retention of Byrd. With the exception of “willful misconduct” on the part of the employer, these claims are barred under Arizona law by the remedy of workers compensation. Ford, 734 P.2d at 586; Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court, 800 P.2d 979, 980-82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990); see also Mosakowski v. PSS World Med., Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1129-31 (D. Ariz. 2003) (interpreting Arizona law). Craig has made no showing that The Mahoney Group’s actions amounted to “willful misconduct” and we consequently affirm the grant of summary judgment for all Appellees on these two claims.