Opinion ID: 183231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Prevent the Assault

Text: Without citing any case supporting her theory, Sutherland argues Walmart is liable because it knew or should have known Aguas was dangerous to women, but it did not prevent Aguas from harassing Sutherland. Doing so, Sutherland ignores this court's opinion in Longstreet v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 276 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2002). In Longstreet, we rejected the plaintiff's argument that her employer should be liable because it was put on notice by prior complaints about the harasser. Id. at 383. We explained the employer was not liable for an instance of severe harassment merely because the employer had notice of one prior incident which may or may not rise to the level of actionable harassment and which was not ignored by the employer. Id. The facts here are strikingly similar to those in Longstreet. Here, Sutherland presented evidence that, years prior to the assault, former-employee Mullins complained Aguas had been leering at her and had given her an unwelcome gift and card. Though management had to warn Aguas twice, he heeded the second warning and left Mullins alone. Mullins almost certainly alleged no behavior rising to the level of actionable harassment. And Walmart responded reasonably and effectively with two verbal warnings. Sutherland does not attempt to distinguish Longstreet, and we reject her argument of employer liability based on notice of prior employee conduct.