Opinion ID: 2459753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: hostile work environment harassment

Text: The disputed issues in this appeal are whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Florida Steel had no duty, under either Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act or the Tennessee Human Rights Act, to eliminate the cold-shoulder treatment which was not racially derogatory or sexually explicit in nature, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Campbell was not constructively discharged. Resolution of these issues requires an examination of the law relating to hostile work environment harassment and constructive discharge. This Court has not addressed the issues raised in this appeal previously, and indeed, Tennessee authority on the subject is sparse. We begin our analysis with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to ... compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Likewise, under the Tennessee Human Rights Act, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401(a)(1) (1991 Repl.). The stated purpose and intent of the Tennessee Act is to provide for execution within Tennessee of the policies embodied in the federal civil rights laws. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) (1991 Repl.); Bennett v. Steiner-Liff Iron & Metal Co., 826 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tenn. 1992). Accordingly, our analysis of the issues in this appeal is the same under both the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act. It is beyond dispute that both the Federal and State Acts apply to claims of discrimination based on the existence of a hostile work environment. The Fifth Circuit was apparently the first court to interpret Title VII to cover such claims. In Rogers v. E.E.O.C., 454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.1971), that court recognized that today employment discrimination is a far more complex and pervasive phenomenon, and held that Title VII sweeps within its protective ambit the practice of creating a working environment heavily charged with ethnic or racial discrimination. Id. at 238. The United States Supreme Court first explicitly recognized that hostile environment harassment claims are cognizable under Title VII in Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986), a sexual harassment case. The Supreme Court approvingly cited Rogers for the proposition that Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Id., 477 U.S. at 65, 106 S.Ct. at 2405. Observing that courts previously had applied that principle to harassment based on race, religion, and national origin, id., the Meritor court concluded that a hostile environment based on discriminatory sexual harassment should likewise be prohibited under Title VII. Id., 477 U.S. at 66, 106 S.Ct. at 2405 (emphasis in original). More recently, in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed the proposition that racial harassment in employment is actionable under Title VII. Id., 491 U.S. at 180, 109 S.Ct. at 2374. Hostile work environment harassment occurs where conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 65, 106 S.Ct. at 2404. To prevail on a hostile work environment claim in a sexual harassment case, an employee must assert and prove that (1) the employee is a member of a protected class; (2) the employee was subjected to unwelcomed sexual harassment; (3) the harassment occurred because of the employee's gender; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the employer knew, or should have known of the harassment and failed to respond with prompt and appropriate corrective action. Rabidue v. Osceola Ref. Co., 805 F.2d 611, 620 (6th Cir.1986); [1] see also Cortes v. Maxus Exploration Co., 977 F.2d 195, 199 (5th Cir.1992); Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3rd Cir.1990); Hirschfeld v. New Mexico Corrections Dept., 916 F.2d 572, 575 (10th Cir.1990); Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 105 (4th Cir.1989) (revs'd in part on other grounds, 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc)); Hall v. Gus Constr. Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir.1988); Huddleston v. Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc., 845 F.2d 900, 904 (11th Cir.1988). Similarly, in order to prevail on a hostile work environment racial harassment claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) membership in a protected class; (2) racially motivated conduct that constituted an unreasonably abusive or offensive work-related environment or adversely affected the reasonable employee's ability to do his or her job; and (3) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to respond with prompt and appropriate corrective action. Davis v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 858 F.2d 345 (6th Cir.1988); see also Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1991). In either context, [c]onduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment  an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive  is beyond Title VII's purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim's employment and there is no Title VII violation. Harris, 510 U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 370. In determining whether an environment is hostile or abusive, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. While no single factor is required or conclusive, considerations relevant to the determination include, but are not limited to, the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance; and the employee's psychological well-being. Id. Moreover, the conduct underlying a hostile environment claim need not be clearly sexual in nature. Before 1985, there were court decisions indicating that the predicate acts underlying a sexual harassment claim had to be clearly sexual in nature. See e.g. Downes v. F.A.A., 775 F.2d 288, 290 (Fed. Cir.1985). However, in McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129 (D.C. Cir.1985), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected that narrow definition and held that any harassment or other unequal treatment of an employee or group of employees that would not occur but for the sex of the employee or employees may, if sufficiently patterned or pervasive, comprise an illegal condition of employment under Title VII. Id., 765 F.2d at 1138-39. Other courts considering the issue since have agreed with the McKinney rationale and have concluded that intimidation and hostility toward women because they are women can obviously result from conduct other than explicit sexual advances. Hall, 842 F.2d at 1014; see also Harris, 510 U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 372 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (The key issue is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed); King v. Hillen, 21 F.3d 1572, 1583 (Fed. Cir.1994); Kopp v. Samaritan Health Sys., Inc., 13 F.3d 264, 269 (8th Cir.1993); Andrews, 895 F.2d at 1485; Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co, 833 F.2d 1406, 1415 (10th Cir.1987). Moreover, the same reasoning applies to racial harassment hostile environment claims. Racial harassment can exist, though the conduct at issue is not racially derogatory in nature. The key inquiry is whether an employee, or a group of employees, of one race has been subjected to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of another race are not exposed. See e.g. Firefighters Inst. for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 549 F.2d 506 (8th Cir.1977) (Holding that the city's duty to provide a nondiscriminatory working environment required it to provide by regulation that on-duty firefighters would not be permitted to use city kitchen facilities if the firefighters' supper clubs excluded black firefighters from membership). Indeed, as the Harris court recognized, a plaintiff need only prove that discriminatory conduct resulted in a hostile work environment. Harris, 510 U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 370. Finally, Title VII does not impose strict liability for hostile environment claims. Even if an employee establishes the existence of a hostile work environment, the plaintiff will not recover under Title VII unless the proof demonstrates that the employer either knew or should have known of the harassment, and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Nash v. Electrospace System, Inc., 9 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir.1993); Steele v. Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., 867 F.2d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir.1989); Barrett v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 726 F.2d 424, 427 (8th Cir.1984). Title VII does not precisely define prompt and appropriate remedial action; however, in general, employers are required to take steps reasonably calculated to terminate the harassment. Saxton v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 10 F.3d 526, 536 (7th Cir.1993) (citing cases). Of course, what remedial action is reasonable and appropriate will vary depending on the circumstances of each case. Davis, 858 F.2d at 349. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of this case, it is clear that the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that Campbell was subjected to hostile work environment sexual and racial harassment, and that upon receiving notice, Florida Steel promptly and effectively eliminated the harassment that was explicitly sexual and racial in nature. We cannot, however, agree with the Court of Appeals' broad statement that Title VII does not, under any circumstances, require an employer to eliminate conduct which is not racially derogatory or sexually explicit in nature. We conclude that if an employee is subjected to discriminatory conduct on the basis of race or gender, and the discriminatory treatment creates a hostile work environment and the employer has notice, a duty exists on the part of the employer to take prompt and appropriate remedial action, reasonably calculated to terminate the harassment. Applying that standard to the specific facts in this case, we observe that Nash, Campbell's immediate supervisor, testified that he spoke with Campbell on a daily basis after the January 4th meeting at which action had been taken to eliminate sexual and racial harassment. When she complained of the cold-shoulder treatment, he repeatedly requested that she provide the names of those individuals involved. Campbell never identified any of the individuals involved, even when Nash suggested specific names to her. From her viewpoint, Campbell was no doubt faced with a Hobson's choice  identify the offenders, be labeled a snitch and suffer the consequences, or refuse to identify them, making it impossible for the company to alleviate the problem, and continue to suffer. The threats from one of the original harassers may have had some influence as well. In any event, she chose to keep silent. Kipp, Florida Steel's personnel manager, testified that had the plaintiff identified the individuals engaging in the cold-shoulder treatment, company officials would have taken action. In addition, Nash testified that at every opportunity he involved Campbell in conversations with other employees in the plant, and that, at one point, Campbell told him that the situation was improving. We conclude that the evidence establishes that Florida Steel attempted to address the problem, but was limited by Campbell's reluctance to snitch on her fellow employees. Accordingly, even if we assume that Campbell was subjected to the cold-shoulder treatment because of her race or gender, and further assume that such discriminatory conduct resulted in a hostile work environment, we still agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that Florida Steel failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action to eliminate the cold-shoulder treatment. Instead, we conclude that Florida Steel responded appropriately based on the available information, and is not liable under either Title VII or the Tennessee Human Rights Act for hostile work environment harassment. We next consider the Court of Appeals conclusion that Campbell failed to establish that she was constructively discharged.