Opinion ID: 74558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts Relating to the Sexual Harassment Claim2

Text: When Rhodd first met Gupta at the airport when she arrived for her initial interview, Gupta perceived that he looked [ ] me up and down. Later that afternoon, Rhodd suggested that he, Gupta, and Neela Manage, co-chairman of the economics department and Associate Dean of the College of Social Sciences, have lunch at a Hooters restaurant, but they did not actually go there. Instead, at the suggestion of Manage, they had lunch at Houston's Restaurant. After a tour of the University's Boca Raton campus and interviews with several professors, Rhodd and Sarah Ransdell took Gupta to dinner at Mango's, which Gupta described as a bar. Rhodd suggested that Gupta change into casual attire before dinner. In August of 1994, after accepting the associate professor position, Gupta returned to Fort Lauderdale to look for an apartment. During this trip, Rhodd looked at her when she took off her jacket, which made her very uncomfortable. He also accompanied Gupta, Sarah Ransdell, and Ransdell's boyfriend to dinner at Shooters, which Gupta describes as a bar and a place where single people meet. After Gupta was hired, Rhodd was very supportive of Gupta and often went out of his way to help her. He told her, If you need anything, just come and talk to me. If you have any problem, come and talk to me. After Gupta complained about the size of her office, Rhodd moved her from a smaller office directly across from his office to a larger 2 When reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, we set out the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Morro v. City of Birmingham, 117 F.3d 508, 510 n. 1, 513 (11th Cir.1997). Some of the facts concerning the alleged sexual harassment and retaliation were hotly contested at trial, but for present purposes we assume that all of Gupta's testimony, and any other evidence favoring her position, is true. Where her testimony consisted of her characterizations of an event, we identify it as such. 3 office. He also volunteered to drop Jamaican food off by her house when she asked where she could find spicy food, but she declined his offer. Rhodd and Gupta did pick up Jamaican food one day and bring it back to the campus to eat for lunch. Soon after Gupta arrived in August, Rhodd began calling her at her home at night. As Gupta described it in her testimony: [H]e used to call me at home.... Quite frequently—two times, three times, you know, a week on an average.... He would call me either late at night, because often 9:30, 10:00 o'clock at night, or over the weekends.... He said, Are you talking to your boyfriend? Where is your boyfriend? His phone calls continued until January of 1995. In one of the calls, Rhodd asked Gupta, I was wondering how you were doing? During some of these evening phone calls, Rhodd asked if she was in bed. He also called her one Sunday morning and informed her that he was going to be the new Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. He told her that as an economist now, [she had] to take up more responsibilities. Rhodd also frequently asked Gupta to have lunch with him. At first, Gupta had lunch with Rhodd almost every day, but later she began having lunch with other colleagues. Gupta thought that Rhodd was upset when she went to lunch with other people. Rhodd started telling Gupta, Well, you know, I know with whom you went to lunch, with, and You don't go to lunch with me any more. He commented that some of the faculty members that Gupta had lunch with were racist and evil. Once when she was wearing a skirt that was above her knee, she perceived that Rhodd was staring at [her] legs. It made her uncomfortable and since that time she has never worn a short skirt. Once when Gupta was in Rhodd's office discussing her teaching schedule, as she described it, he just rolled his chair and came close to me and he put his hand on my right thigh. His hand was partly on the inside of her thigh. It happened very quickly, and Gupta moved away very quickly. On another occasion, Rhodd touched her bracelet and said, Oh, it is a very nice bracelet. Another time, he touched a ring Gupta was wearing. 4 On another occasion when Gupta went into Rhodd's office, he suddenly rolled his chair towards [her] and he said, 'What kind of material is that?' and he lifted the hem of [her] dress about four inches with his hand. She instinctively stepped back. Another day, when the air conditioning was broken and it was very hot, Rhodd was expecting Gupta to come pick up a book from his office. Gupta entered Rhodd's office and discovered that he had on his undershirt, but had taken his dress shirt off. She offered to come back to see him later, but he said to wait and at the same time he unbuckled his belt and pulled down his zipper and start[ed] tucking his [dress] shirt in. She thanked him for the book and left. Rhodd also made some comments to Gupta that she characterized as harassment. He told her that the reason she was assigned to teach more hours than other teachers and the reason she had not received her new computer was that people here are racist.3 Once Dr. Rhodd commented, You are looking very beautiful. Twice he told her, Indian people are really decent, and the Caribbean and Western people are really promiscuous. I can look at you and I can tell you are innocent and you don't have much experience. One morning after a bad thunderstorm the night before, Rhodd called Gupta and asked if she needed a ride to a University seminar. During that conversation, he said, Oh, you were all by yourself on a dark and stormy night? Why didn't you call me? I would have come and spend [sic] the night with you. Gupta understood Dr. Rhodd's suggestion to mean that he wanted to [have a] sexual relationship with me. She told him, Don't talk to me that way. You are talking nonsense. On one occasion, Rhodd stated that he considered men superior to women, that women are like meat, and that men need variety in women. Once, Rhodd came into Gupta's office and asked her Why do you look so unhappy? Have you fallen for a man you can't talk about? She responded, What are you talking about? He replied, I give you six months to fall for a man about which you won't be able to talk about. Gupta thought that Rhodd was referring to himself. 3 Gupta never explained why she thought that statement amounted to harassment of her. She said she believed that these statements were made to get me to his side, so that I know that this place is bad. She stated that these statements made her very distressed and very upset. 5 Although no precise date is given in the record, Gupta apparently arrived at the University in or around August of 1994. When the case was tried in July and August of 1997, she was still employed as an assistant professor of economics at the University. However, the last time she spoke with or otherwise had anything directly to do with Rhodd was in or around February of 1995. His statements and actions about which she complains occurred during a period of six or seven months. C. Facts Relating to Gupta's Complaints Inside the University4 In 1994 Gupta confided in Ransdell that Rhodd had told her that certain people in the College of Liberal Arts were racist and that he would protect her. Ransdell assured her that these people were not racist. In November 1994, Gupta had another conversation with Ransdell in which she told her about Rhodd's comment that men are superior to women and his statement that he would have spent the night with Gupta during the storm. Ransdell told her: Don't talk to anybody about it. Keep your mouth shut. I'm not going to tell it to anybody. And look for another job. Gupta also talked with Dr. Ganson, a junior faculty member; Dr. Rose, a professor of history; Dr. Mona Domash, associate professor of economics; Dr. Lynn Appleton, a professor of sociology; and Neela Manage, the co-chairman of the Economics Department and the Associate Dean of the College of Social Sciences.5 The first time she spoke with Manage was sometime in October of 1994. Gupta told Manage that she was distressed because Rhodd was calling her at home late at night and over the weekends and he was telling her that people at the University were racist. According to Gupta, she also told her that there was more to it, but I did not mention anything much more than those things. Manage told her to be very careful. 4 See supra note 2. 5 Gupta did not describe her conversations with Ganson or Rose. The record is unclear about what Gupta told Domash and Appleton, but it does reveal that they both advised Gupta to speak with one of the University's sexual harassment advisors. 6 Later that same month, Gupta went to Manage's office to talk to her again. Gupta began crying because she felt unsafe and uncomfortable. She talked with Manage about the possibility of transferring to the Boca Raton campus. Manage told her that she saw no reason why Gupta could not apply for a position at the Boca Raton campus, but that Gupta should be careful because the decision-maker, Dr. Stronge, then the acting chairman of the Department of Economics, and Doctor Rhodd, they're like this, they're very good friends. In December, Gupta again talked with Manage and told her about Rhodd wanting to come and spend the night with me, [and] all of those incidents. Manage told Gupta that she should talk to Dean White, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Thereafter, still in December of 1994, Gupta told Dean White that she was having some problems with Rhodd. She explained to him that Rhodd was giving her inaccurate information and telling her that it was not important that she attend certain meetings. White asked her if she would describe Rhodd's behavior as sexual harassment. As Gupta recounted, she responded, I told him that I did not want to talk to him about the details at that point in time, but I told him that, you know, Doctor Rhodd was going out for promotion and I could have put him into lot [sic] of trouble if I wanted to. I told him that; that is, I gave him enough indication. White told her that, if it was of the nature of sexual harassment, it's not going to stop that easily. Having read the University's policy against sexual harassment, Gupta thought if she blew the whistle on Doctor Rhodd, that would really hurt his career, and she did not want to do that. In January of 1995, Gupta heard a rumor that Rhodd was telling others that Gupta was not doing her job and should be fired. Gupta told Ransdell about the rumor, and Ransdell told her to look for another job. Gupta met again with White and told him about the rumor she had heard. She also told White that Rhodd had been sexually harassing her. The record does not indicate what White said to Gupta in response. Gupta met with one of the University's sexual harassment counselors, Debra Minney, in January of 1995. Minney informed Gupta that the University used two types of resolution proceedings, informal and formal. Gupta chose to attempt an informal resolution of her complaint against Rhodd. As part of the 7 informal resolution process, Dean White prepared a document in which he listed all of the specific allegations made by Gupta. Rhodd then responded to Gupta's allegations. Based on what Gupta and Rhodd said, White drew up a draft of the allegations which he hoped the parties would find mutually agreeable. Because Gupta would not agree to sign White's draft, Ondina Felipe, the University's attorney, prepared a proposed informal settlement agreement which was presented to Gupta in March of 1995. Gupta was not satisfied with the proposal, so Paula Behul, the University's Director of Equal Opportunity Programs, requested that Gupta describe in writing the parts she found objectionable. Gupta had not responded by September of 1995. Behul then met with Gupta and requested that she formulate a response to the proposed agreement and present it to Behul on or before October 9, 1995. Gupta failed to meet that deadline. Because of what she considered to be Gupta's failure to cooperate in the informal resolution process, Behul closed the case on October 12, 1995.6 D. Legal Proceedings Gupta filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and on April 10, 1996, a notice of a right to sue was issued to her. On June 25, 1996, Gupta filed a three-count complaint against Rhodd and the Florida Board of Regents in federal district court. The first count, which was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that Rhodd had sexually harassed her under color of state law and had thereby deprived her of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The second count alleged that the Board was liable under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, for Rhodd's discriminatory conduct, and the third count alleged that the Board was also liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., on theories of hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. Gupta filed an amended complaint on February 26, 1997, dropping the Title IX count but leaving the other two counts. 6 We recount the facts relating to the allegedly retaliatory actions the University took against Gupta in our discussion of that claim. See infra Part II.B. 8 On May 6, 1997, Gupta filed a supplemental complaint adding another count against the Board. The new count alleged that after Gupta filed an internal complaint with the University and a formal complaint with the EEOC against the Board and Rhodd, the University unlawfully retaliated against her in violation of Title VII. Gupta's claims were tried and submitted to a jury. After four-and-one-half hours of deliberation, the jurors sent a note to the judge, which stated that they could not unanimously agree on the answers to the three questions on the first page of the verdict form.7 In response, the district court gave the jury an Allen charge.8 Soon thereafter, the jury returned a verdict finding that Rhodd was not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but that the Board was liable under Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliation.9 The jury awarded Gupta $45,000 in compensatory damages for the sexual harassment claim and $50,000 in compensatory damages for the retaliation claim. Following the entry of judgment, the Board renewed its earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law on both claims or, in the alternative, a new trial. The district court denied the Board's motion.10 The Board appeals. 7 Those three questions on the first page of the verdict form were as follows: 1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Florida Board of Regents is liable to Plaintiff for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for hostile work environment and/or quid pro quo sexual harassment? 2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Florida Board of Regents retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for complaining about sexual harassment and filing a sexual harassment charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? 3. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Rupert Rhodd, while acting under color of state law, intentionally deprived Plaintiff of her Constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States? 8 See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). 9 The jury answered the first two questions quoted in the preceding footnote yes, and the third one no. 10 Among the arguments the Board made in its motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial and repeats in this appeal is the contention that, because the jury found in favor of Rhodd on the § 1983 claim, the Board cannot be held liable for his actions under Title VII. Because we hold that the Board is entitled to 9