Opinion ID: 766113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Caridad's Claim of Sexual Harassment

Text: 47 On appeal, Caridad makes two arguments in support of her claim that the District Court erred in dismissing her sexual harassment claim based on her failure to cooperate in Metro-North's attempted investigation of her complaint. First, she contends that Clarke's sexual harassment subjected her to a constructive discharge, and that such a discharge is a tangible employment action for which the employer is strictly liable without regard to an affirmative defense, under the Supreme Court's recent decisions concerning employer liability for Title VII violations by supervisors, see Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998). Alternatively, she argues that even if her constructive discharge is not a tangible employment action, Metro-North cannot satisfy the standard articulated by the Court in Ellerth and Faragher for an employer's affirmative defense to strict liability under Title VII. 48 In Ellerth the Supreme Court held that [a]n employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. 49 Ellerth, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2270 (citation omitted); see also Faragher, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2292-93. 50 Contrary to Caridad's assertion, constructive discharge does not constitute a tangible employment action, as that term is used in Ellerth and Faragher. In determining when an employer may be held strictly liable for the discriminatory acts of its supervisory employees, the Court focused on the following language of the Restatement (Second) of Agency: A master is not subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope their employment, unless: . . . (d) the servant . . . was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(2) (1957). In searching for a principled limitation of the aided by the agency relation concept, the Supreme Court concluded that the requirement of a tangible employment action by the harassing supervisor would ensure that employer liability would be imposed without the possibility of an affirmative defense only where the employer is implicated in the harm visited upon the employee by his or her supervisor: 51 When a supervisor makes a tangible employment decision, there is assurance the injury could not have been inflicted absent the agency relation. . . . As a general proposition, only a supervisor, or other person acting with the authority of the company, can cause this sort of injury. A co-worker can break a co-worker's arm as easily as a supervisor, and anyone who has regular contact with an employee can inflict psychological injuries by his or her offensive conduct. But one co-worker . . . cannot dock another's pay, nor can one co-worker demote another. . . . The supervisor has been empowered by the company as a distinct class of agent to make economic decisions affecting other employees under his or her control. 52 . . . . A tangible employment decision requires an official act of the enterprise, a company act. . . . 53 For these reasons, a tangible employment action taken by the supervisor becomes for Title VII purposes the act of the employer. . . . 54 Ellerth, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2269 (citation omitted); see also Faragher, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2290-92. Co-workers, as well as supervisors, can cause the constructive discharge of an employee. And, unlike demotion, discharge, or similar economic sanctions, an employee's constructive discharge is not ratified or approved by the employer. 55 Moreover, the facts of Ellerth, where the plaintiff, like Caridad, did not complain of the harassment prior to quitting her job, indicate that constructive discharge is not a tangible employment action depriving the employer of the availability of the affirmative defense to Title VII liability. Ellerth alleged that she had been constructively discharged as a result of sexual harassment by her supervisor, see Ellerth, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2263; in remanding the case for a determination of whether the employer could make out an affirmative defense, the Supreme Court noted that Ellerth has not alleged she suffered a tangible employment action at the hands of [her supervisor], id. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2271. 56 Thus, although we have stated in another context that [w]hen a constructive discharge is found, an employee's resignation is treated . . . as if the employer had actually discharged the employee, Lopez v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 831 F.2d 1184, 1188 (2d Cir. 1987), constructive discharge is not a tangible employment action warranting the imposition of strict liability under the Ellerth/Faragher standard. Accordingly, we must determine whether Metro-North has demonstrated that it is entitled to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. 57 As noted above, in the absence of a tangible employment action, an employer can avoid liability for a supervisor's harassment of a subordinate if it demonstrates that (a) it exercised reasonable care in preventing and correcting any sexually harassing behavior and (b) the plaintiff-employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities. Caridad asserts that there is no evidence that Metro-North exercised reasonable care to prevent Clarke's behavior and that her failure to file a formal complaint and assist in the investigation of her claims was not unreasonable under the circumstances. 58 An employer need not prove success in preventing harassing behavior in order to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care in preventing and correcting sexually harassing conduct. Although not necessarily dispositive, the existence of an anti-harassment policy with complaint procedures is an important consideration in determining whether the employer has satisfied the first prong of this defense. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2293 (While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense.); see also Fierro v. Saks Fifth Avenue, 13 F. Supp.2d 481, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (noting that the existence of an anti-harassment policy with complaint procedure is an important, if not dispositive, consideration). It is not disputed that Metro-North had an anti-harassment policy with a procedure for filing complaints. Furthermore, the undisputed facts of Caridad's case indicate that Metro-North endeavors to investigate and remedy problems reported by its employees. Under these circumstances, Metro-North exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior. 59 With respect to the second prong of the affirmative defense, Caridad asserts that it was reasonable for her to be hesitant in speaking about the events. We do not doubt that there are many reasons why a victimized employee may be reluctant to report acts of workplace harassment, but for that reluctance to preclude the employer's affirmative defense, it must be based on apprehension of what the employer might do, not merely on concern about the reaction of co-workers. Caridad's reasons are not based on a credible fear that her complaint would not be taken seriously or that she would suffer some adverse employment action as a result of filing a complaint. Her reasons for not complaining to her employer are insufficient to preclude summary judgment in favor of Metro-North. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2293 ([W]hile proof that an employee failed to fulfill the corresponding obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm is not limited to showing an unreasonable failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the employer, a demonstration of such failure will normally suffice to satisfy the employer's burden under the second element of the defense.). In creating the affirmative defense to vicarious liability for the acts of supervisors, the Supreme Court sought to accommodate the principle of vicarious liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority, as well as Title VII's equally basic policies of encouraging forethought by employers and saving action by objecting employees. Faragher, 524 U.S. at __, 118 S. Ct. at 2292. Here, the facts reveal that Metro-North is entitled to an affirmative defense against Title VII liability for the alleged conduct of Caridad's supervisor.