Opinion ID: 1269932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Co-worker Harassment

Text: In determining whether the employer failed to take `prompt and effective remedial action to end the harassment,' [this court] consider[s] `the amount of time between notice of the harassment and any remedial action, the options available to the employer such as employee training sessions and disciplinary action taken against the harassers, and whether or not the measures ended the harassment.' Arraleh v. County of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967, 979 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2100, 167 L.Ed.2d 813 (2007), quoting Diaz v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 318 F.3d 796, 801 (8th Cir.2003). Notice is the key issue here. [W]here an employer has a complaint procedure delineating the individuals to whom notice of harassment must be given, actual notice is established when the employee notifies those individuals. Weger, 500 F.3d at 721 (because the Department has a published policy that provides a procedure for reporting suspected harassment, Plaintiffs must have invoked this procedure in order to establish actual notice). Constructive notice, on the other hand, is established when the harassment was so severe and pervasive that management reasonably should have known of it. Id.,quoting Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261, 1265 n. 3 (8th Cir.1997) (stating constructive notice may be shown if the harassment was obvious to everyone). Jenkins insists the Hartman and Waranch affidavits are sufficient to overcome summary judgment. Hartman, in his affidavit, states he learned of the harassment sometime before the meeting in December. He continues: I discussed what Ms. Jenkins had told me with Chief Frank Warranch, and I believe that he had already heard about it from someone else. Together, we called the Command's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and reported Ms. Jenkins's' [sic] allegations to him. Chief Warranch and I were on a speaker phone discussing the matter with him. At that time the EEO Officer was Sean Williamson. To the best of my knowledge nothing happened after Chief Warranch and I reported command master Chief Jones' actions. Master Chief Jones' actions were pretty widely known among the command's zone supervisors. We discussed it among ourselves at production meetings but, of course, did not discuss it outside supervisory ranks. The Waranch affidavit states: . . . . I became aware that she was being harassed by Chief Jones shortly after it began. I first spoke with Chief Sean Williamson about the harassment and later spoke personally with Master Chief Jones. Chief Williamson did not do anything and Chief Jones told me to stay within my rank. It was discussed in zone meetings between the zone supervisors.. . . We kept telling C.R. Hartley about the harassment but he was not receptive to hearing about it. . . . I spoke with Chief Williamson about the harassment on more than one occasion. I also spoke with Rick Field, a retired Chief . . . and he reported what was going on to Chief Williamson. . . . . On one occasion, I went to the office of Command Officer Hale and began to tell him about Chief Jones' harassment of Gina Jenkins. . . . . . . . After the incident where Master Chief Jones inappropriately touched Gina Jenkins, Chief Dan Hartman and I together placed a telephone call to the Equal Opportunity Officer, Sean Williamson and told him about it. . . . I am not aware that he took any action as the result of our telephone call. I went personally to Command Officer Hale and told him about the inappropriate touching. . . . The command staff had numerous opportunities to stop the harassment had they chosen to do so. Viewing the evidence most favorably to Jenkins, the affidavits create a genuine issue of material fact as to when the Navy learned of the sexual harassment. See Morris v. City of Chillicothe, 512 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8th Cir.2008) (an issue of material fact is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury verdict for the nonmoving party). Although the affidavits do not provide specific dates, the chronologies in the affidavits, read most favorably to Jenkins, suggest the Navy had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassment well before the December 4 meeting. For instance, viewing Waranch's affidavit most favorably to Jenkins, it is reasonable to infer that the Navy had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassment shortly after it began. This court does not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. See id. (In considering a motion for summary judgment the court does not weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, or attempt to discern the truth of any factual issue.), citing Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 526-27 (8th Cir.2007). The evidence presented could persuade a reasonable jury to rule in favor of Jenkins and find that the Navy failed to take prompt or effective remedial measures to end the harassment. The district court's grant of summary judgment is reversed, as to co-worker harassment.