Abbt v. City of Houston
28 F.4th 601
| 5th Cir. | 2022Background
- Melinda Abbt, a Houston firefighter, had a private nude video she made for her husband on her personal laptop; coworkers accessed and repeatedly viewed the video without her consent.
- Junior Captain Chris Barrientes first viewed the video and later showed or provided access to District Chief David Elliott; both watched it multiple times over years.
- Abbt learned of the viewings in May 2017 after Elliott confessed to her husband, then developed PTSD, took FMLA/unpaid leave, filed an OIG complaint, and was later medically separated.
- The OIG sustained Abbt’s complaint; Barrientes and Elliott were disciplined (suspensions; Barrientes demoted), but Abbt received no assurances about dissemination of the video or future coworker interactions.
- Abbt sued the City for Title VII sexual harassment (hostile work environment) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for the City on both claims.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment as to retaliation but reversed as to the hostile-work-environment sexual harassment claim and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated, nonconsensual viewing of Abbt’s intimate video by male coworkers created a Title VII hostile work environment | The repeated viewing of her nude video by male supervisors was unwelcome, sex-based harassment that objectively and subjectively altered her working conditions | The conduct did not create a hostile environment as a matter of law (not contemporaneously experienced; theft/source uncertain; employer took remedial steps) | Reversed: genuine disputes exist on each element; a jury could find the conduct was sex-based, severe/egregious, and altered terms of employment |
| Whether the employer can be held liable based on supervisor knowledge | Knowledge by District Chief Elliott (who watched and requested the video) imputes notice to the City under its chain-of-command structure | City argued no imputed liability because perpetrators were not formal supervisors for vicarious liability or remedial steps sufficed | Held: Elliott’s knowledge is imputable to the City under Williamson; employer notice question is for a jury |
| Whether the City’s actions after Abbt’s complaints (denial of paid leave, contesting workers’ comp, attorney’s call to therapist) constituted unlawful retaliation | These actions followed her protected complaints and chilled her rights; the attorney call was impermissible interference with therapy | City offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (policy-based leave denial, colorable workers’ comp defense, attorney concerned about therapist’s dual role) | Affirmed: City met its production burden and Abbt failed to show pretext; no triable retaliation claim |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by striking portions of Abbt’s declaration | Stricken paragraphs were admissible and material | Stricken paragraphs were hearsay/speculation/contradicted prior statements | Court declined to resolve abuse-of-discretion because outcome unaffected: reversal on harassment claim and affirmation on retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (establishes objective and subjective hostile-work-environment standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (factors for severity/pervasiveness and effect on employment)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire to infer sex discrimination)
- Williamson v. City of Houston, 148 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 1998) (notice to supervisory official may be imputed to employer)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse-action standard includes acts that could dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Raggs v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 278 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2002) (elements of Title VII retaliation prima facie case)
- McCoy v. City of Shreveport, 492 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) (employer’s production burden and plaintiff’s pretext burden in retaliation cases)
- Harvill v. Westward Commc’ns, L.L.C., 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (single egregious incident can suffice for hostile-work-environment claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Commc’ns, Inc., 61 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 1995) (post-discovery knowledge and its effect on hostile-environment claims is a question of fact)