Opinion ID: 3049613
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mahoney Group’s affirmative defense

Text: [9] The Mahoney Group argues that even if Craig has alleged sufficient facts to support her Title VII claim, because Craig did not suffer “tangible employment action,” it is entitled to assert an affirmative defense. See Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 148-49 (2004); Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1168-69. As we previously pointed out, there are two steps to proving a “reasonable care” affirmative defense. First, the employer must show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior. Second, the employer must show that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9527 After examining the record, we hold that The Mahoney Group satisfied the first prong of the affirmative defense—that the company “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior.” Id. Specifically, the company had a mechanism in place for filing complaints about sexual harassment. When Craig finally did complain, The Mahoney Group addressed the situation promptly: It told Byrd to stay away from Craig, hired outside counsel to investigate and make recommendations, had Craig report to another individual other than Byrd and conducted sexual harassment training.3 These responsible and prompt actions satisfy the first prong of the test. [10] The company’s affirmative defense fails on the second prong, however, because The Mahoney Group cannot show that Craig “unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Id. at 807. The Mahoney Group argues that Craig unreasonably delayed reporting the harassment because she waited until August 27, 2003 to file a complaint with the company, some 19 days after the incident at the restaurant; it suggests that if Craig had reported the behavior earlier, it is quite possible that Byrd would not have made the subsequent phone calls or repeatedly propositioned her at work. However, we do not think that in this situation a 19-day delay is unreasonable; an employee in Craig’s position may have hoped the situation would resolve itself without the need of filing a formal complaint, and she justifiably may have delayed reporting in hopes of avoiding what she perceived could be adverse—or at least unpleasant—employment consequences. Additionally, Craig’s behavior is even more reasonable when one considers that Byrd’s behavior continued until at least August 20, 2003. 3 Craig alleges that the investigation the company undertook was a “sham” and alleges that outside counsel failed to interview several individuals Craig claimed had also been harassed by Byrd. Because The Mahoney Group’s affirmative defense fails on the second prong, we need not address this issue, although it may be a relevant inquiry on remand. 9528 CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. We cannot see how a delay of a mere seven days (including the weekend) rises to the level of being “unreasonable.” Craig’s delay is markedly different from cases where victims have allowed the harassment to continue for a period of months or years before finally reporting it to the appropriate authority. See, e.g., Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1178 (noting that the plaintiff waited a full two years from the first sexual incident and a full year after she testified the sexual activity was unwelcome before reporting the behavior); Montero v. AGCO Corp., 192 F.3d 856, 863 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding a two-year delay in reporting the conduct to be unreasonable); see also Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1180-82 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that failure to report the behavior to the company was unreasonable). [11] We hold that The Mahoney Group’s affirmative defense fails, as Craig’s minor delay in reporting the behavior did not meet the stringent standard outlined in Faragher. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for The Mahoney Group and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as to whether Craig should prevail on this claim upon remand. C. Craig’s Title VII Claim Against Roberts and Byrd [12] We have long held that Title VII does not provide a separate cause of action against supervisors or co-workers. See Holly D., 339 F.3d at 1179; Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 1998); Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993). Consequently, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Patricia Roberts and Leon Byrd on Craig’s Title VII claim. D. Craig’s State Law Claims Finally, we address Craig’s various state law claims. CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9529 1. Intentional infliction of emotional distress [13] Craig first claims damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To establish a prima facie case, Craig must demonstrate (1) Appellees engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct;” (2) Appellees either intended to cause “emotional distress or reckless disregard of the near certainty that such distress will result from [Appellees’] conduct;” and (3) Craig suffered “severe emotional distress” as a result of Appellees’ conduct. Wallace v. Casa Grande Union High Sch. Dist. No. 82 Bd. of Governors, 909 P.2d 486, 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). To satisfy the first prong, the conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Cluff v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 460 P.2d 666, 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969), overruled on other grounds by Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 783 P.2d 781 (Ariz. 1989). Drawing all inferences in Craig’s favor, U.S. ex rel. Anderson, 52 F.3d at 815, Craig has made a prima facie showing with respect to the second and third prongs; the relevant questions is whether Byrd’s conduct was so “outrageous” to satisfy the standard articulated in Wallace and Cluff. We conclude that it was and reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Appellees argue that Craig’s claim is “similar to the many other sets of facts courts have rejected as ‘outrageous.’ ” However, the cases they cite are instances involving behavior that a reasonable finder of fact could find less “outrageous” than Byrd’s actions. See, e.g., Cluff, 460 P.2d at 668 (finding no IIED claim in “the act of an insurance adjuster in simply contacting a person to whom his company may be liable in order to obtain a settlement of that claim, even after retention of counsel”); Wallace, 909 P.2d at 495 (affirming a grant of summary judgment on an IIED claim because “recommendations and decisions on nonrenewal of [plaintiff’s] administrator contract, the changing of her duties and the reduction of her salary” were lawful and not “outra9530 CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. geous”); Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 888 P.2d 1375, 1386-87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) (finding that the dismissal of an employee in front of the news media was not conduct that would sustain an IIED claim); Mintz v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int’l, Inc., 905 P.2d 559, 562-64 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (finding that termination decisions are generally insufficient to directly raise an IIED claim and holding that defendant’s “failing to promote Plaintiff, forcing her to return to work, and hand delivering a letter to her while in the hospital” was not “extreme” or “outrageous” conduct). [14] The Restatement of Torts, cited with approval by the Cluff, Mintz, and Nelson courts suggests that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Byrd’s conduct rises to the level of outrageousness: The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where someone’s feelings are hurt. There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion, and some safety valve must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam. Restatement 2d of Torts, § 46, comment (d). Byrd’s behavior did not comprise “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Despite society’s “rough edges,” Craig should not be required to become “hardened to” her supervisor repeatedly propositioning inside and outside of the office, following her into the bathroom, standing outside the toilet stall and then grabbing her and sticking his tongue in her mouth. While this conduct is CRAIG v. M&O AGENCIES, INC. 9531 deplorable in any setting, a reasonable observer or trier of fact could find it to be “outrageous” and “extreme,” particularly in an employment context. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Byrd on Craig’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. [15] Arizona law is clear, however, that an employer is rarely liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when one employee sexually harasses another. Liability for the employer typically attaches only when a company utterly fails to investigate or remedy the situation. See, e.g., Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 734 P.2d 580, 585-86 (Ariz. 1987); Smith v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 876 P.2d 1166, 117374 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). The Mahoney Group did not abdicate its duty to investigate and take remedial measures once Craig reported Byrd’s conduct. We conclude that Craig has not met the high standard under Arizona law and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Mahoney Group and Patricia Roberts on this claim. 2. Negligent investigation, hiring, supervision and retention [16] Craig next asserts two related claims: negligent investigation and negligent hiring, supervision and retention of Byrd. With the exception of “willful misconduct” on the part of the employer, these claims are barred under Arizona law by the remedy of workers compensation. Ford, 734 P.2d at 586; Irvin Investors, Inc. v. Superior Court, 800 P.2d 979, 980-82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990); see also Mosakowski v. PSS World Med., Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1129-31 (D. Ariz. 2003) (interpreting Arizona law). Craig has made no showing that The Mahoney Group’s actions amounted to “willful misconduct” and we consequently affirm the grant of summary judgment for all Appellees on these two claims.