Opinion ID: 1281991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Subordinate Harassment of a Supervisor

Text: The defendant asserts that summary judgment should be upheld because the Human Rights Act does not provide for a cause of action against employers by supervisory employees who claim to have been sexually harassed by subordinate employees. We reject the defendant's contention. To establish a claim for sexual harassment based upon a hostile or abusive work environment under the Human Rights Act, a plaintiff-employee must prove that (1) the subject conduct was unwelcome; (2) it was based on the sex of the plaintiff; (3) it was `sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the ... [plaintiff's] conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment'; and (4) it was imputable on some factual basis to the employer. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295, 301-02 (1993). (Citation omitted). Certainly, a supervisor is an employee under the Human Rights Act, [6] at least where the individual is not a partner, owner, or part-owner. [7] The defendant does not seriously dispute this conclusion, but argues that supervisors-employees (or at least some of them) do not enjoy the same level of protection from sexual harassment. Our case law, Westmoreland Coal Co. v. West Virginia Human Rights Commission, 181 W.Va. 368, 382 S.E.2d 562 (1989); the Human Rights Commission (HRC) regulations, 6 W.Va.C.S.R. § 77-4-3 (1992); the federal authorities, Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., supra ; Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (1980), recognize two types of sexual harassment. First, in quid pro quo harassment, an employer or its agent conditions an employee's job, employment benefits, or continued employment on his or her consent to participate in sex. Second, in hostile environment harassment, which is alleged here, an employer discriminate[s] against ... [a female employee] with respect to ... conditions or privileges of employment[,] when the workplace is infected, for example, by sexual barbs or innuendos, offensive touching, or dirty tricks aimed at the employee because of her gender. W.Va.Code, 5-11-9(1) (1992). In these cases, women are denied an equal opportunity in the workplace because, unlike their male counterparts, they must work in an atmosphere they find emotionally oppressive. Creating a per se rule that prohibits recovery by supervisors removes a distinct group of individuals from the protection of the Act. As mentioned above, see note 6, supra, the Human Rights Act is a broad statute that attempts to protect the rights of individuals. Nothing in the Act cautions against its application to claims by a supervisor. Moreover, the legislative rules support protection of supervisors. Section 2.2 of 6 W.Va.C.S.R. § 77-4-2 (1992) defines the parameters of sexual harassment: 2.2 Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:       2.2.3 Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Additionally, Section 2.1 of 6 W.Va.C.S.R. § 77-4-2 (1992) interprets the Human Rights Act as affording employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult. These rules and the Human Rights Act are generally for the express purpose of protecting the rights of all individuals in the employment context. When sexual harassment occurs, the identity of the perpetrator is irrelevant to the victimized employee. A hostile environment can be just as oppressive when it is created by co-workers, subordinates, or customers as when it is caused by a superior. Case law under Title VII, EEOC regulations, and HRC regulations concur that co-workers and customers can cause a hostile environment. E.g., Davis v. Tri-State Mack Distribs., Inc., 981 F.2d 340 (8th Cir.1992) (co-workers); Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264 (7th Cir.1991) (co-workers); EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 F.Supp. 599 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (customers); King v. Chrysler Corp., 812 F.Supp. 151 (E.D.Mo.E.D. 1993) (patrons); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d) (1980) (fellow employees); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e) (1980) (non-employees); 6 W.Va. C.S.R. § 77-4-3.2 (1992) (co-workers). [8] We see no reason in the Human Rights Act or in right and reason to reach a different result when the hostile environment is created by a subordinate. Put another way, we hold that the Human Rights Act imposes a duty on employers in this State to ensure that workplaces are free of sexual harassment from whatever source. An employer, however, is not strictly liable, at least not in all cases, for sexual harassment and proof of a hostile environment does not automatically establish employer liability. It is at this point that the source of the harassment becomes relevant. Where an agent or supervisor of an employer has caused, contributed to, or acquiesced in the harassment, then such conduct is attributed to the employer, and it can be fairly said that the employer is strictly liable for the damages that result. When the source of the harassment is a person's co-workers and does not include management personnel, the employer's liability is determined by its knowledge of the offending conduct, the effectiveness of its remedial procedures, and the adequacy of its response. Thus, an employer that has established clear rules forbidding sexual harassment and has provided an effective mechanism for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints of harassment may not be liable in a case of co-worker harassment where the employer had neither knowledge of the misconduct nor reason to know of it. [9] In such a case, the employer has done all that it can do to prevent harassment, and the employer cannot be charged with responsibility for the victim's failure to complain. [10] We see no reason for a different analysis to apply where the harasser is a subordinate of the victim. The employer's duty remains the same: it must do what it can to prevent harassment and must respond swiftly and effectively to complaints about harassment. The sufficiency of the employer's response determines its legal responsibility. It is not irrelevant in making that determination, however, that the harassing employee was a subordinate of his victim; that fact is just not an end-all. Each case will turn on its own particular circumstances. For example, if a supervisor complains to her employer of a subordinate's harassment and the employer responds, You take care of it, that may in some cases be sufficientif the supervisor has full disciplinary authority and circumstances permit use of it. In other cases, however, that response may be inadequate. The harassed supervisor could be the object of an entire crew of male harassers and would likely need greater assistance from her employer than a flippant, You handle it. Similarly, the power to discipline a six-foot, five-inch, 300-pound ex-felon with a history of violence may not be terribly comforting to a lot of women supervisors. The point is that common sense must be applied to the facts in each case to determine whether the employer took direct and prompt action `reasonably calculated' to end the harassment. B. Lindemann & D.D. Kadue, Sexual Harassment in Employment Law 195-96 (1992), citing Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 469 (5th Cir.1989). See also Huddleston v. Roger Dean Chevrolet, 845 F.2d 900 (11th Cir.1988); Barrett v. Omaha National Bank, 726 F.2d 424 (8th Cir.1984). [11] The facts in this case are ambiguous. According to the plaintiff, when she informed the defendant of Mr. Embrey's conduct, the doctor responded, Can you handle it? and she said she could. The defendant disputes this assertion. Whether that was enough requires factual development. The nature of the conversation between the parties, the personalities of the plaintiff and Mr. Embrey, the clarity and extent of the plaintiff's authority to discipline Mr. Embrey, [12] the employer's past practices with respect to personnel matters, the existence of a disciplinary grievance process, and the nature of the alleged harassmentto name a few potentially relevant considerationscould all weigh on assessing the sufficiency and validity of the defendant's response. Of course, the factfinder could also conclude that it believes the defendant's version that the conversations never occurred and that he did not learn of the alleged harassment until shortly before the plaintiff's discharge. We intimate no view on how these factual issues should be resolved. Rather, we simply emphasize that this is a very fact-specific case that requires very careful factual determinations. [13] The defendant and the circuit court have contended that fair employment laws generally, and sexual harassment doctrines in particular, reflect a legislative desire to protect workers in protected classes from injury caused by an abuse of power; therefore, they contend the law does not extend to a subordinate's harassment of a supervisor. To be sure, Title VII and the Human Rights Act do address power imbalances in the employment context; the statutes reflect a recognition that protected classes historically have been concentrated in the lower rungs of the workplace hierarchy and their members are vulnerable. See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). Certainly, the typical quid pro quo sexual harassment case involves a supervisor using his or her authority over a subordinate to control and/or intimidate the subordinate. It would be difficult to conceive how any employer or agent could exact a quid if the person did not have the power to provide the quo. [14] Having conceded the above, we do not see how perceiving the fair employment laws as primarily, or even exclusively, concerned with an abuse of power prevents this case from going forward. To conclude that a supervisor harassed by subordinates cannot be victimized by an abuse of power would ignore the reality of what women encounter in the workplace. For example, a female supervisor who is set upon by male subordinates and targeted to be a failure would surely be a victim of male dominance. (This would be especially true if the workplace traditionally has been a male environment.) A supervisor assaulted by a male subordinate of superior physical strength or subjected to repeated exposure to pornography is in each case a victim of a male-ordered hierarchy. [15] Nor do we necessarily agree with the circuit court's conclusion that the alleged harassment in this case could not have involved an abuse of power because the harassment came from a subordinate. If the plaintiff proves employer insensitivity or unconcern, she proves an abuse. If the plaintiff proves a good ole' boy environment in which the employer tolerated Mr. Embrey's behavior and failed to back women managers, she proves an abuse. If the plaintiff proves that Mr. Embrey created in her a reasonable fear of physical retaliation or a fear for her own safety, she proves an abuse. These are just examples, but they illustrate that the interaction of power and gender in the workplace cannot be reduced to mechanical inquiries about the relative status of the plaintiff in the employment hierarchy. The bottom line, however, is that it does not really matter for purposes of the Human Rights Act whether the plaintiff was a victim of a power play. We do not perceive discrimination as necessarily synonymous with an abuse of power. More importantly, we do not find an inquiry into power to be a useful part of our fair employment doctrine. As a practical matter, any doctrinal standard that includes a requirement that a plaintiff must establish some abuse of power is simply unworkable. The concept is far too subtle and formless [16] for judges and juries to apply in a consistent manner, especially in hostile environment cases. Instead, we believe that a doctrine that first inquires into whether the plaintiff was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, then decides if the employer knew or should have known of the hostility, and concludes by gauging the sufficiency of the employer's response provides both a workable framework and a fair accommodation of employer and employee interests. [17] Whether the plaintiff's work environment was hostile and whether the defendant-employer met his duty in this particular case were clearly matters of factual dispute. A remand for development and findings of facts is therefore necessary.