Opinion ID: 2979005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effective and appropriate response

Text: Tyson argues that Parks’ actions in response to West’s complaint to him were so clearly appropriate that the jury could not have reasonably found otherwise. We disagree. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to West, was sufficient for the jury to find that the response was neither reasonably prompt nor effective. The appropriate corrective response will vary according to the severity and persistence of the alleged harassment. See, e.g., Calderon v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 300 F. App’x. 362, 371 (6th Cir. 2008). To meet the standard this Court set forth in Blankenship, 123 F.3d at 875, the actions taken - 12 - No. 08-6516 West v. Tyson Foods, Inc. must be “reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Jackson v. Quanex, 191 F.3d 647, 663-64 (6th Cir. 1999). Parks’ initial response to West’s complaint was to justify and perpetuate the harassment by saying “that’s just how they treat their women over there” and “well, you know, you are hot.” Then, after realizing that West was not amused, Parks, too, became serious. However, in response to West’s complaints against numerous individuals, two identified by name and others by sight, of frequent harassing activities that were both vulgar and threatening, and that clearly upset West, Parks’ only response was to move West to a different place on the processing floor, and, possibly, to watch her occasionally for the next few days. Assuming that the harassment proceeded as West claims, as we must, this action was woefully insufficient, especially in light of Parks’ directive to West to refrain from reporting the matter to HR. See Jackson, 191 F.3d at 665 (“[I]f a remedy ‘is ineffectual, liability will attach . . . an employer’s actions will not necessarily shield it from liability if harassment continues.” (quoting Fuller v. City of Oakland, Cal., 47 F.3d 1522, 1529 (9th Cir. 1995))). Further, a reasonable jury could have concluded from the evidence that Parks failed to take a number of steps that would clearly be necessary to establish a base level of reasonably appropriate corrective action under the circumstances, such as speaking with the specific individuals identified by West, following up with West regarding whether the harassment was continuing, and reporting the harassment to others in management. Parks’ failure to do these things at any time supports the conclusion that his response was neither prompt nor appropriate. See Jackson, 191 F.3d at 663-64 - 13 - No. 08-6516 West v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (response that does not include attempt to determine perpetrators of harassment is not reasonably calculated to end conduct). Tyson claims that because West did not complain to Parks a second time, Parks reasonably believed he had resolved the situation. However, there is sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to have reasonably found that Parks could not have reasonably believed the situation to be resolved after merely assigning West to a different work location.7