Opinion ID: 1037025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: denial of renewed motion for judgment

Text: AS A MATTER OF LAW
Consumers argues that the district court erred by denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law following the second trial on Waldo’s hostile-work-environment claim. We review de novo the decision of a district court on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same standard used by the district court. See Parker v. Gen. Extrusions, Inc., 491 F.3d 596, 602 (6th Cir. 2007). In evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law and deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, “[t]he evidence should not be weighed, and the credibility of the witnesses should not be questioned. The judgment of this court should not be substituted for that of the jury; instead, the evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and that party given the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Tisdale v. Fed. Express Corp., 415 F.3d 516, 531 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Williams v. Nashville Network, 132 F.3d 1123, 1130–31 (6th Cir. 1997)). A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted only if “there is no genuine issue of material fact 3 Despite Consumers’s argument to the contrary, see Appellant Br. at 45–46, this conclusion follows even assuming that the jury reasonably could have believed that the April 18, 2005 incident was not motivated by gender-based animus. Excluding the April 18, 2005 surprise evaluation, there was still testimony regarding harassment after March 12, 2005, specifically testimony, corroborated by multiple witnesses, that Waldo continued to be ignored and ostracized in her Step IV class in April 2005. No. 12-1518 Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company Page 16 for the jury, and reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion in favor of the moving party.” Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2005).
As stated previously, in order to find in favor of Waldo on her hostile-workenvironment claim, the jury had to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: “(1) she belonged to a protected group, (2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on [sex], (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, and (5) the defendant knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to act.” Williams, 643 F.3d at 511. On appeal, Consumers argues that Waldo failed to present sufficient evidence of the fourth and fifth elements of her hostile-work-environment claim. Namely, Consumers contends that Waldo failed to present evidence of severe or pervasive harassment within 300 days of when she filed her EEOC charge, and that Waldo did not present evidence that Consumers failed to take appropriate remedial action in response to Waldo’s complaints of coworker harassment. Upon review of the record in the second trial, we hold that the district court did not err by denying Consumers’s motion for judgment as a matter of law: there was sufficient evidence presented such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of Waldo on her hostile-workenvironment claim. First, there was ample evidence that Waldo was subjected to severe or pervasive harassment sufficient to be actionable under Title VII. Waldo testified regarding a wide range of harassing behaviors that she endured on a regular basis at work, where she was the first woman to work with the Transmission Department. R. 296 (2nd Trial Tr. at 421) (Page ID #6973). Waldo testified that McDonald told her that there would “never . . . be women in [the Transmission Department],” and that if she took the job, she would be “wash[ed] . . . out” of the program. R. 296 (2nd Trial Tr. at 598) (Page ID #7150). There was also testimony about constant demeaning name-calling, see R. 297 (2nd Trial Tr. at 611–12) (Page ID #7162–63), the incident when Waldo was locked in a portapotty, see id. at 647–51 (Page ID #7198–202), and the presence of sexually explicit No. 12-1518 Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company Page 17 materials in the trucks of both the Distribution and Transmission crews. See id. at 671, 676 (Page ID #7222, 7227). Waldo repeated her testimony from the first trial regarding her lack of access to bathrooms at rural job sites, and that her coworkers ridiculed her for bringing a purse to work. See id. at 641 (Page ID #7192); id. at 617–18 (Page ID #7168–69). While her male coworkers went with McDonald for an ice cream break on a hot day, Waldo testified that she was told to stay behind and do extra shoveling, and that this task was assigned “[j]ust to break [her].” Id. at 619–21 (Page ID #7170–72). Waldo explained that she was isolated when riding to work sites: her male coworkers avoided riding with her because if they did, they “would have to take the hazing of [being told] you were having sex with [Waldo].” Id. at 622–23 (Page ID #7173–74). Other witnesses corroborated Waldo’s testimony regarding the harassment. Larry Lyle, an instructor at Consumers, testified that he was told not to help Waldo during training sessions, and that he had heard McDonald using derogatory language to refer to women. R. 296 (2nd Trial Tr. at 519–21) (Page ID #7071–73). McDonald acknowledged that Waldo complained to him regarding the offensive name-calling. R. 295 (2nd Trial Tr. at 389) (Page ID #6941). Huizinga also testified that Waldo had told him that she was being harassed by her male coworkers. R. 298 (2nd Trial Tr. at 937) (Page ID #7488). A reasonable jury could have found this testimony credible and could have found that Waldo’s workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult . . . that [wa]s sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [Waldo’s] employment.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Williams, 187 F.3d at 559, 562–64 (holding that the combination of “humiliating and fundamentally offensive” name-calling, offensive remarks directed at women generally, office “pranks” including “being locked in one’s work area,” being denied breaks, and being ostracized constituted sufficiently severe and pervasive harassment to be actionable under Title VII). Second, Consumers argues that no evidence was presented regarding unlawful conduct within the 300-day period prior to when Waldo filed her charge with the EEOC, and that for this reason her hostile-work-environment claim must fail. See Appellant Br. No. 12-1518 Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company Page 18 at 48. As explained in Part II supra, as long as at least one act contributing to the hostile-work-environment claim occurred within the filing period, “the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 117. Contrary to Consumers’s assertions, there was evidence presented that Waldo was subjected to harassing behavior after March 12, 2005. Waldo testified that in April 2005, during her Step IV training, her coworkers refused to work with her and one coworker stated that “women shouldn’t be in this job.” R. 297 (2nd Trial Tr. at 677–80) (Page ID #7228–31). Cutts confirmed Waldo’s account when he testified that in the Step IV class in 2005, Waldo’s coworkers ostracized her, isolated her, and made it clear that they resented her presence. R. 294 (2nd Trial Tr. at 146–47) (Page ID #6697–98). A reasonable jury could have inferred that this isolation and ostracization was motivated by gender-based animus and thus contributed to the hostile work environment. See Berry, 260 F.3d at 811; Williams, 187 F.3d at 565–66. Additionally, a reasonable jury could have found credible Waldo and Cutts’s testimony that the unexpected evaluation on April 18, 2005, was motivated by gender-based animus. See R. 294 (2nd Trial Tr. at 154–56) (Page ID #6705–07) (indicating that Cutts perceived the evaluation as intended “to X [Waldo] out of the program”); R. 297 (2nd Trial Tr. at 683–89) (Page ID #7234–40). From this evidence, a jury reasonably could have believed that harassing acts contributing to the hostile work environment occurred after March 12, 2005. Third, on the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could have found that there was a basis for holding Consumers liable for the harassing conduct of Waldo’s coworkers. As in the first trial, McDonald testified that Waldo complained to him several times about harassment, including derogatory name-calling and the porta-potty incident. See R. 295 (2nd Trial Tr. at 389–97) (Page ID #6941–49); R. 296 (2nd Trial Tr. at 498) (Page ID #7050). However, no formal action was taken, i.e., McDonald did not create a written record of the complaints or formally reprimand any of Waldo’s coworkers. R. 295 (2nd Trial Tr. at 389–97) (Page ID #6941–49). Additionally, HR representatives Bolden and Eckert testified that they were aware of Waldo’s complaints about gender-based harassment, but that no formal investigations or interviews were No. 12-1518 Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company Page 19 undertaken. See id. at 214–17 (Page ID #6766–69); id. at 298–300 (Page ID #6850–52); R. 294 (2nd Trial Tr. at 115) (Page ID #6666); R. 298 (2nd Trial Tr. at 967) (Page ID #7518). Although a response plan was formulated that involved a one-day diversity training session, the plan’s contemplated action of long-term monitoring and follow-up was never implemented. See R. 295 (2nd Trial Tr. at 308–10) (Page ID #6860–62). From this testimony, a reasonable jury could have found that Consumers knew about the harassing behavior but failed to take reasonable remedial steps. See Williams, 643 F.3d at 511. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the jury to find that Consumers manifested indifference towards the harassment, and thus could be held liable under Title VII. See Jackson, 191 F.3d at 659. In sum, a reasonable jury could have found that Waldo met her burden of proof to show that she was subjected to severe or pervasive sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment and that Consumers could be held liable for the hostile environment. As a result, the district court did not err by denying Consumers’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.