Opinion ID: 1742981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Iowa Civil Rights Act Hostile-Work-Environment Claim

Text: In Farmland Foods v. Dubuque Human Rights Commission, we set forth the elements of an ICRA hostile-work-environment claim: To establish a hostile work environment, the plaintiff must show: (1) he or she belongs to a protected group; (2) he or she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Additionally, if the harassment is perpetrated by a nonsupervisory employee, the plaintiff must show the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. 672 N.W.2d 733, 744 (Iowa 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The district court entered findings of fact which established that Boyle was subjected to a hostile work environment. The court determined: [Boyle] was subjected to sexual harassment by her co-worker's offensive sexual language and conduct at work.... The conduct by [Boyle's] co-workers was based on her gender.... The conduct by [Boyle's] co-workers was directed to [Boyle] and was unwelcome and uninvited.... The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive so that a reasonable person would find [Boyle's] work environment to be hostile.... [Alum-Line] knew of the sexual harassment.... However, the court found Boyle failed to prove all of the elements of a claim for sexual harassment in the workplace because Alum-Line did take steps reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. Boyle argues there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that Alum-Line took steps reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. Our review of claims tried to the district court under the ICRA is for correction of errors at law. Falczynski v. Amoco Oil Co., 533 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa 1995) (Our review of discrimination claims tried to the court is at law.). The district court's findings of fact are entitled to the weight of a special verdict and are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Lynch v. City of Des Moines, 454 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Iowa 1990). If there is no substantial evidence to support a finding upon which the lower court arrives at a challenged conclusion of law, the finding is not binding on this court. Offermann v. Dickinson, 175 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1970). Before we analyze the disputed finding of fact, we first analyze the court's conclusion that a reasonable person would find [Boyle's] work environment to be hostile. Throughout trial, Alum-Line contended Boyle only made one complaint which conceivably related to sexual harassment. This one complaint related to an argument between Boyle and Hansmeier over blueprint measurements on a trailer. Boyle complained to Orr when Hansmeier told her to look at the f  ing plan. Alum-Line argues this one instance led to the judge's conclusion that Boyle was subjected to a hostile work environment. This argument is not consistent with the court's actual findings. First of all, the heated exchange between Boyle and Hansmeier involved only one coworker while the court's finding of fact repeatedly refers to the harassers as co-workers. Second, this single incident was insufficient to find conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive so that a reasonable person would find the plaintiff's work environment to be hostile. To establish the harassment was severe or pervasive, Boyle had to show she subjectively perceived the conduct as abusive and that a reasonable person would also have found the conduct to be abusive or hostile. Farmland Foods, 672 N.W.2d at 744. Also, because hostile-work-environment claims by their nature involve ongoing and repeated conduct, not isolated events, the court had to find there was more than just one instance of inappropriate conduct. Id. at 745. Boyle's sole complaint regarding the confrontation with Hansmeier does not satisfy either of these tests. Because the court found there was a hostile work environment, we conclude the court determined Boyle was subjected to other instances of offensive sexual language and conduct at Alum-Line. We next focus our attention on the last two findings of fact  [t]he defendant knew of the sexual harassment, and [t]he defendant did take steps reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. Orr stated he only received one complaint from Boyle concerning a hostile work environment. That complaint pertained to the incident when Hansmeier told Boyle to look at the f  ing plan. Both Hansmeier and Boyle were reprimanded over the incident. Beyond this reprimand, Alum-Line took no others steps to curtail sexual harassment in the workplace while Boyle worked for Alum-Line. [2] Indeed, the crux of Alum-Line's defense was that Boyle did not notify either Gooder or Orr that she was being sexually harassed, but if she had, Alum-Line would have taken such a complaint seriously and investigated it thoroughly. When comparing these factual findings, we cannot find substantial evidence to support the court's finding that Alum-Line took steps reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. One reprimand by Orr over an isolated incident is not substantial evidence to support a finding that Alum-Line took steps to stop the severe or pervasive sexual harassment. Because there was not substantial evidence to support a finding that Alum-Line took remedial action to stop the sexual harassment, we necessarily conclude, as a matter of law, that Alum-Line failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action once it knew of the sexual harassment. The district court's remaining factual findings support a judgment for Boyle under the elements of an ICRA hostile-work-environment claim. See generally Novak Equip., Inc. v. Hartl, 168 N.W.2d 924, 927 (Iowa 1969) (stating a finding of insufficient evidence to support the court's judgment on one factual finding entitles the appellant to a reversal for entry of judgment in the appellant's favor unless there were issues presented but not decided by the court). Upon remand, the district court shall enter judgment in favor of Boyle on her ICRA hostile-work-environment claim. The court shall then determine damages based upon the existing trial record.