Opinion ID: 2995181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Plaintiff has been required to

Text: perform a variety of maintenance tasks (fix a door, install a window, build a box for gym equipment) that were, prior to her move to the day custodial position, traditionally performed by outside contractors or the maintenance department. 10. On at least two occasions, male custodians hid the tools plaintiff needed to do her job. 11. The other female custodian at the high school, Gaudette, left due to the hostile environment. 12. Norsted and Mara both heard the male custodians make a variety of derogatory comments about the female custodians-- asserting that they were not qualified to do their jobs as custodians and that they should not be paid as much as men--but neither took any action. In summary, plaintiff presents a variety of incidents in which she--the only day custodian at the high school and the only female custodian at the high school since March of 1999--was harassed by the male superintendent, the male principal, her male supervisor, and the male night custodians. This harassment was not of a sexual nature but rather it was directed at the terms and conditions of her employment: questioning her abilities and the ability of women to do her job in general, plotting to give her job to a male custodian, increasing her duties in an attempt to make her quit, withholding necessary assistance, hiding the tools necessary to do her job, making discriminatory comments, and so forth. While none of these incidents were particularly severe, they are sufficiently pervasive, and they seem to have unreasonably interfered with her ability to do her job. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23; cf. Russell, 243 F.3d at-343- 44 (finding insufficient evidence to sustain a hostile environment claim, where most of the offensive comments were directed at plaintiff’s co-workers and the few comments directed at plaintiff were minor); Adusumilli, 164 F.3d at 361- 62 (finding that a few ambiguous comments, several touches to plaintiff’s finger and hand, and one possible poke to plaintiff’s buttocks were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable); McKenzie, 92 F.3d at 480 (finding that three comments over a three month period were not frequent or severe enough to rise to the level of unreasonably interfering with plaintiff’s work environment). Further, there is no evidence that men were subjected to this type of harassing behavior. Cf. Hardin v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 167 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that plaintiff was not singled out for abusive treatment because alleged harasser was a crude individual who treated all of his coworkers poorly), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 874, 120 S. Ct. 178, 145 L. Ed. 2d 150 (1999). Plaintiff asserts that the work environment was subjectively hostile, and points to problems with sleep, depression, and weight gain, as well as several incidents in which she was brought to tears. It seems clear that she did subjectively regard the environment as abusive, McKenzie, 92 F.3d at 479; see also Gentry v. Export Packaging Co., 238 F.3d 842, 851 (7th Cir. 2001), and there is no evidence to the contrary. The School District suggests that plaintiff should have to do more than declare that she was harassed, yet that is the whole point of the subjective inquiry: we inquire into whether the plaintiff perceived her environment to be hostile or abusive. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787. If she did, as is evident here, then we assess whether that feeling was reasonable. In this case, both the frequency of the discriminatory conduct and its interfere[nce] with [plaintiff’s] work performance support a finding of objective hostility. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Similarly situated others--those who were the only person of a certain sex or race in a workplace, who were treated differently than the other workers, and who were aware of disparaging references to their sex or race--would likely feel harassed by this type of pervasive behavior. Cf. Saxton v. AT&T, 10 F.3d 526, 534-35 & n.14 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding there was not an objectively hostile work environment where there were only two instances of offensive behavior and the behavior did not interfere with the plaintiff’s work performance). Determining whether plaintiff was treated differently because of her sex, as opposed to some other reason (for example, any difference in job descriptions among the custodial positions) is admittedly complicated by the fact that she is the only day custodian at the high school. Thus, it is difficult to compare what has been required of her with what is required of the night custodians, or the day custodians at the other schools. The incidents of discriminatory treatment towards plaintiff and the other women, however, are unmatched by similar reports of this type of conduct being directed toward men. It would be reasonable to conclude that a male day custodian with Haugerud’s level of seniority would not have been treated the same way. The School District’s primary argument in response is that it has the contractual and managerial right to define job requirements for its daytime custodians [i]ncluding the discretion to add routine maintenance duties during the day shift that had not been previously required. First of all, this argument ignores the other types of harassment alleged by plaintiff, which we have mentioned above. Secondly, even if the School District has a contractual right to impose additional duties on plaintiff, this right is not absolute; Title VII would not permit the District to increase plaintiff’s workload due to her sex. In the instant case, plaintiff challenges the District’s contention that the day custodians are supposed to do more maintenance work than the night custodians by showing that the job descriptions are identical, at least with respect to required maintenance work: both descriptions say the custodians will perform routine maintenance/repairs to building boiler systems, plumbing, and electrical equipment. Haugerud also states that her official job description did not change when she transferred to the day custodial position at the high school, thus there was nothing in writing suggesting that the new position would involve an increase in maintenance duties. Finally, she has presented evidence showing that the job duties for her position were increased when she took on the position, in comparison to the duties expected of the male custodian who held the position immediately prior to her (she also asserts that the job duties for a night custodial position were decreased when Gaudette left and a man took her place). Perhaps the final blow is that the School District has not denied or explained (at least on appeal) plaintiff’s most damaging allegation: that the male custodians were told not to help the female custodians. No similar decree was given to the female custodians; in fact, the females were still expected to help the males (e.g., the women were required to shovel snow and the men were not, and plaintiff was told to clean the bathrooms after the men failed to clean them). If plaintiff’s allegation is true, it would seem to constitute discrimina[tion] . . . because of . . . sex. 42 U.S.C. 2000e- 2(a)(1); Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80. It would be one thing to hold all employees accountable for their job duties, and to prohibit any employee from helping another, but a simple decree that the male workers not help the female workers would evidence intent to treat the custodians differently on the basis of sex. The sum total of plaintiff’s allegations--the school board decree, the discriminatory comments, the increased workload, the failure to assist plaintiff, and the evidence of attempts to hinder her performance of her job duties--could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find a general hostility to the presence of women in the workplace. Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80. Undoubtedly, [i]t is challenging to precisely define what constitutes a hostile work environment. Gentry, 238 F.3d at 850. The district court summarized plaintiff’s factual allegations by stating that two co-workers made comments to her that female custodians should not be paid as much as male custodians, and that she contends that the high school principal talked to her once in an abusive manner. Haugerud v. Amery, No. 99-C-515-S, slip op. at 8 (W.D. Wis. March 7, 2000). The court then determined that [t]hese actions are not so severe and pervasive as to alter plaintiff’s working conditions. Id. We recognize that this is a close call. Nonetheless, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could find that plaintiff was treated differently than her male colleagues because of her sex, in a manner that was both subjectively and objectively harassing, and at a sufficient level of pervasiveness to trigger liability under Title VII. b. The School District’s Liability Our inquiry, however, does not end with the determination that plaintiff has experienced a hostile work environment. A plaintiff must also show that the employer is liable for the discriminatory acts. See Smith v. Sheahan, 189 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 1999). Though the district court did not reach this issue, both parties discussed it on appeal, and our above conclusions mandate consideration of whether the School District could be held liable here. To hold an employer liable for co-worker harassment, a plaintiff must show that it negligently failed to take reasonable steps to discover or remedy the harassment. Id. The standard for determining when an employer will be held liable for sexual harassing behavior of a supervisor was recently established by the Supreme Court: An 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. . . . No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807-08, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1998); see also Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257, 141 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1998). Although we do not carve up the incidents of harassment when determining if the harassment was severe or pervasive, Mason v. S. Ill. Univ. at Carbondale, 233 F.3d 1036, 1045 (7th Cir. 2000), in order to determine whether the employer is liable we must distinguish between the harassment allegedly perpetrated by supervisors and that allegedly perpetrated by co-workers.
In line with traditional agency principles, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the acts of those who can be considered an employer’s proxy, such as a president, owner, proprietor, partner, corporate officer, or supervisor ’hold[ing] a sufficiently high position in the management hierarchy of the company for his actions to be imputed automatically to the employer.’ Johnson v. West, 218 F.3d 725, 730 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Faragher, 524 U.S. at 789-90). Plaintiff alleges harassment on the part of Norsted, the District Administrator, and Sanders, the high school principal./4 Plaintiff alleges that Norsted: 1) promised Fougner that he would get him his job back; 2) tried to force plaintiff to give up her position at the high school so that Fougner could return to it; 3) wrongfully extended her period of probation; 4) insinuated to a friend of plaintiff’s that he should have talked plaintiff out of the move, stating that you know as well as I know that she cannot do the job; 5) conspired with Fougner to assign plaintiff extra maintenance duties; 6) tried to prevent the male maintenance workers from helping her (by criticizing Elkin and Mara for doing more maintenance work at the high school than at other schools); and 7) failed to take action when male custodians made harassing or discriminatory comments in his presence. Plaintiff alleges that Sanders: 1) tried to prevent her from being transferred to the high school for discriminatory reasons; 2) unnecessarily gave her probation; 3) conspired with Fougner to devise a work schedule that there was no way in hell she could complete during the day shift; 4) assigned her tasks that were impossible for one person to complete; 5) failed to respond to her requests for additional help; 6) gave her duties and responsibilities that were not given to the male custodians; 7) failed to take action to force plaintiff’s male co-workers to assist in shoveling snow; 8) beeped plaintiff on a frequent basis to disrupt her work; and 9) spoke to her in a very loud, angry, and abusive manner in front of students and teachers. There is a safe harbor for employers in cases in which the alleged harassing conduct is too tepid or intermittent or equivocal to make a reasonable person believe that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her sex. Galloway v. Gen. Motors Serv. Parts Operations, 78 F.3d 1164, 1168 (7th Cir. 1996). We have continued to recognize such a haven in the post Ellerth/Faragher era. See Hardin v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 167 F.3d 340, 346 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 874, 120 S. Ct. 178, 145 L. Ed. 2d 150 (1999); Adusumilli v. City of Chi., 164 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir. 1998). We do not think, however, that this case falls into the safe harbor because the numerous incidents, taken together, could indicate a pervasively hostile work environment. While plaintiff does not allege that Norsted and Sanders made overtly discriminatory comments, there is enough evidence in the record to support an inference of sex discrimination. Thus we proceed to the Ellerth/Faragher framework. An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor . . . . Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. A tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761; see also Murray v. Chi. Transit Auth., 252 F.3d 880, 887 (7th Cir. 2001); Molnar v. Booth, 229 F.3d 593, 600 (7th Cir. 2000); Ribando v. United Airlines, 200 F.3d 507, 510-11 (7th Cir. 1999). In short, [a] tangible employment action has to cause a substantial detriment to the plaintiff’s employment relationship. Savino v. C.P. Hall Co., 199 F.3d 925, 932 n.8 (7th Cir. 1999). This is akin to the requirement that an employment action must be materially adverse, see id., see also Murray, 252 F.3d at 888, and we have already determined that plaintiff suffered no such action. Cf. Molnar, 229 F.3d at 600 (holding that jury could find that taking art supplies away from plaintiff, who was interning as a junior high school art teacher, was a tangible employment action). Thus we must determine whether the School District is entitled to raise an affirmative defense. The Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense places the burden on the employer to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, two elements. See Gentry v. Export Packaging Co., 238 F.3d 842, 846 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Savino, 199 F.3d at 932. First, the employer must establish that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 777-78. One method of demonstrating the exercise of reasonable care is to show the existence of an effective antiharassment policy with complaint procedure. Id. Defendant has stated that a sexual harassment policy with complaint procedure was in place throughout the relevant time period, that this policy was distributed to employees, and that ASD occasionally held in-service meetings with staff to review the policy. Plaintiff has not disputed these facts, nor does she assert that the policy was somehow ineffective or deficient. See id. at 808 (holding that the City could not have exercised reasonable care where it had entirely failed to disseminate its policy and there was no assurance that harassing supervisors could be bypassed in registering complaints); Gentry, 238 F.3d at 847, 848 (holding that a policy must provide for effective grievance mechanisms and that Title VII requires the employer to take[ ] the necessary steps to fully and effectively implement its sexual harassment policy). Instead, she alleges that the District did not exercise reasonable care because it never took any action in response to the complaints made by plaintiff’s husband and co-workers, prior to the time plaintiff filed her ERD complaint. We have considered at least one case in which the plaintiff argued that the employer did not exercise reasonable care because it did not take corrective action prior to the time plaintiff filed her complaint. See Hill v. Am. Gen. Fin. Inc., 218 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff in Hill sent the company a number of letters in which she represented herself as a customer and complained about her boss’s harassing be havior. See id. at 641. When the human resources department conducted an investigation, it was suspected that the plaintiff-employee had written the letters but she did not acknowledge that she had. See id. Two months after the initial letter, plaintiff finally sent a letter, signed in her own name, setting out the instances of harassment. See id. at 642. We determined that the plaintiff did not notify the company of the harassment until she sent the letter in her own name because the earlier letters were not a reasonable effort at notification and she did not acknowledge that she had written those letters when the company investigated the complaints set out in the letters. Id. at 643. That situation is somewhat distinguishable from a situation such as this, where people complained on plaintiff’s behalf and with plaintiff’s knowledge. In any event, whether we could find that the School District was on notice once Drinkman and plaintiff’s husband complained to the School Board members on plaintiff’s behalf is not an issue we need to resolve today because, even after the Board was notified by plaintiff (when she filed her complaint on September 24, 1998), it did nothing. No internal investigation was pursued and no remedial action was taken. The School District does not attempt to argue otherwise. What the School District does argue, repeatedly, is that plaintiff did not file a written complaint of sexual harassment with the District prior to filing her charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC. This pertains to the second element of the employer’s affirmative defense, in which the employer must show that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. An employee’s unreasonable failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the employer would indicate that she failed to fulfill [her] obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm. Id. at 778. Here, however, plaintiff did not fail to take advantage of the Board’s sexual harassment policy. That policy allows complainants to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Rights Division [i]n addition to or instead of [using the internal] complaint procedure. As the plaintiff’s decision to file an external complaint rather than filing a complaint with the Board was in accordance with the Board’s own policy, the Board can not now allege that plaintiff did not fulfill her obligation of reasonable care. We thus conclude, as a matter of law, that the Board could not be found to have exercised reasonable care to prevent Norsted’s and Sanders’ harassing conduct and is thus not entitled to present an affirmative defense to plaintiff’s claim that she was subjected to a hostile work environment by her supervisors. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 809.
Plaintiff also alleges that she was harassed by her co-workers, and that their harassment, coupled with that of her supervisors, created a hostile work environment. Employers are only liable for co-worker harassment if the plaintiff demonstrates that the employer was negligent in some fashion. See Adusumilli v. City of Chi., 164 F.3d 353, 361 (7th Cir. 1998). In hostile work environment cases, the employer can avoid liability for its employees’ harassment if it takes prompt and appropriate corrective action reasonably likely to prevent the harassment from recurring. Tutman v. WBBM-TV, Inc., 209 F.3d 1044, 1048 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct. 777, 148 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2001). As we have already noted, however, the School District has not presented evidence that it took any type of correc tive action once plaintiff filed her ERD complaint. Thus, this is not like the majority of the cases we consider, in which plaintiff contests the efficacy of the employers response; see, e.g., Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 811-12 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1076, 120 S. Ct. 790, 145 L. Ed. 2d 666 (2000), this is a case where the employer simply did not act. We conclude that a reasonable fact finder could find that the School District’s failure to take any steps to investigate plaintiff’s allegations or to act on them in any way constituted negligence.