Opinion ID: 1767797
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hostile Work Environment Claim.

Text: Ms. Hill's first claim is for sexual harassment resulting in a hostile work environment. It is governed by section 213.055, which, as relevant here, states in subsection 1.1 that it shall be an unlawful employment practice: (1) for an employer, because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability of any individual: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability. A claim of violation of this section is submitted to the jury as follows: Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe: First, defendant (here insert the alleged discriminatory act, such as failed to hire, discharged or other act within the scope of Section 213.055, RSMo) plaintiff, and Second, (here insert one or more of the protected classifications supported by the evidence such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability) was a contributing factor in such (here, repeat alleged discriminatory act, such as failure to hire, discharge, etc.), and Third, as a direct result of such conduct, plaintiff sustained damage. [unless you believe plaintiff is not entitled to recover by reason of Instruction Number (here insert number of affirmative defense instruction)]. MAI 31.24 (6th Ed. Supp.2007). Ford reluctantly recognizes that, under Daugherty , the law as set out in section 213.055.1(1)(a), rather than as set out in McDonnell Douglas , governs Ms. Hill's hostile work environment claim. Ms. Hill claims that Mr. Hune sexually harassed her to such a degree that it created a hostile work environment. Sexual harassment creates a hostile work environment when sexual conduct either creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment or has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance. Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (citation omitted). To prevail on a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) she (or he if the claim is brought by a male) is a member of a protected group; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) her gender was a contributing factor in the harassment; and (4) a term, condition or privilege of her employment was affected by the harassment. [6] A plaintiff can meet the requirement of proving that the harassment affected a term or condition of her employment by showing that the harassment contributed to cause a tangible employment action. Missouri regulations define a tangible employment action as a significant change in employment status and as the means by which the supervisor brings official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates. 8 CSR 60-3.040(17)(D)(3). Such an action usually but not always involves direct economic harm. Id. Examples of tangible employment actions include but are not limited to: hiring and firing; promotion and failure to promote; demotion; undesirable reassignment; a decision causing a significant change in benefits; compensation decisions; and work assignments. [7] 8 CSR 60-3.040(17)(D)(4). No affirmative defense is available ... when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action. Id. at 60-3.040(17)(D)(2). If the harassment did not result in a tangible employment action, then: an 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 employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Id. at 60-3.040(17)(D)(1). Here, Ford alleges that it was entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Hill's hostile work environment claim because she failed to show that she suffered a tangible employment action in that her suspension did not result from Mr. Hune's sexual misconduct; rather she was suspended for disrespect toward her supervisor, including failing to keep on her safety glasses, and that the referral for psychiatric treatment was based on her conduct at the plant and was later withdrawn. While a jury could believe Ford's evidence in this regard, on summary judgment a court is required to resolve all factual issues in favor of the non-moving partyhere, Ms. Hill. She presented evidence that the suspension and the referral to a psychiatrist were in direct response to her refusal of Mr. Hune's advances and that the other explanations offered by Ford are pretextual. Ms. Hill also presented evidence that she and others had complained to supervisors about Mr. Hune's conduct weeks before the September incident related to her reassignment to cladding and, in fact, that incident occurred because of anger at her complaints. Yet, she asserts, management did nothing to discipline Mr. Hune until she called the hotline and reported to Ford corporate headquarters, shortly after she complained about the harassment and Mr. Hune said he would not let her work for him, Further, she alleges that Ford did not even contact her when it was investigating Mr. Hune's conduct and that it fired him for other misconduct, not because of her complaints. A reasonable fact-finder could accept Ms. Hill's evidence and conclude that her referral for psychiatric treatment and her suspension constituted tangible employment actions that were caused or contributed to by the sexual harassment. If the jury so finds, then Ford is not entitled to an affirmative defense that she did not timely complain or that it timely responded to her complaints. Even were Ford's conduct insufficient to constitute tangible employment actions, however, Ford is not entitled to summary judgment based on its affirmative defense. As noted, to establish that defense it must show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the sexually harassing behavior and that Ms. Hill unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities it offered. If Ms. Hill's evidence is believed by the jury, however, it could find that she and other female Ford employees spoke to their group leader, Pete Wade, about the problem with Mr. Hune's inappropriate sexual comments and that in May or June 2002, prior to her September 2002 suspension and referral for psychiatric treatment, Mr. Wade spoke with Mr. Hune's own supervisor, Superintendent Maurice Woods, and told him of Mr. Hune's inappropriate, sexually harassing behavior. Superintendent Woods said he would talk to Mr. Hune. However, according to Ms. Hill, the conduct continued. Ms. Hill presented evidence that after Superintendent Woods learned about Mr. Hune's sexual harassment of Ms. Hill and other female employees, he nonetheless assigned Ms. Hill to the job in cladding, which Mr. Hune supervised. Further, she presented evidence that even after her hotline call to Ford, Ford's investigation of her claim was inadequate in that it failed to even interview her, and Ford apparently fired Mr. Hune for other misconduct uncovered in its investigation. This evidence, if believed, would be sufficient to defeat Ford's affirmative defense. For all of these reasons, it was error to grant summary judgment on Ms. Hill's claims of a hostile work environment.