Opinion ID: 3015778
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Co-Worker Liability

Text: The District Court also misstated the standard for co-worker liability by improperly placing the burden of proof on the defendant. The District Court explained the standard for co-worker liability as follows: On the other hand, if you find from the evidence that Mr. Teutsch was not plaintiff’s supervisor, but merely a co-worker, then defendant is entitled to assert certain defenses. Defendant neither knew or nor, with reasonable diligence, should have known of his conduct; or, two, once defendant learns of the conduct, they took appropriate remedial action to stop it; and plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer and to avoid harm, otherwise. I am going to go over each of these defenses in more detail. Be mindful that the defendant has the burden of proving these defenses by a preponderance of the evidence. Joint App. vol. III at 763a. The District Court mischaracterized the standard of liability as an affirmative 7 defense. In order to impose liability on an employer for one co-worker’s sexual harassment of another (where the harassing employer is not in a supervisory position over the victim), the plaintiff must demonstrate that “‘the defendant knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.’” Kunin v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 175 F.3d 289, 293-94 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir.1990). This is not an affirmative defense, but rather the burden of the plaintiff. See Kunin, 175 F.3d at 294. If the jury found that Teutsch was not Fornicoia’s supervisor, but merely her co-worker when he harassed her, Fornicoia had the burden of demonstrating that Haemonetics knew or should have known of the harassing conduct and failed to act. It appears that the District Court intertwined the standards of liability for supervisor and co-worker sexual harassment and thereby failed to properly instruct the jury on the issue. Because the jury instructions did not fairly and adequately advise the jury on the standards of liability, we must remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.