Abigail Wilson v. Gaston County, NC
685 F. App'x 193
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Abigail Wilson, a Gaston County paramedic, alleged coworker Jim Putman sexually harassed her (comments, explicit texts, groping, bruising) beginning in late 2011 and continuing into 2012.
- Wilson was briefly terminated in 2010 over driving-record issues, reinstated after an FMLA-related appeal; she contends she was thereafter targeted and treated more harshly.
- In March 2012 Human Resources investigated after a coworker confrontation; HR found Putman had sexually harassed Wilson and recommended discipline (written warning, suspension, shift transfer, counseling), which the County implemented.
- Wilson sued under Title VII (hostile work environment), FMLA and ADA retaliation, and multiple North Carolina tort theories (negligent retention/supervision, battery, IIED). The district court granted summary judgment to Gaston County on all claims.
- The Fourth Circuit majority affirmed, holding the County lacked adequate notice of the harassment (or responded reasonably once put on notice); a partial dissent argued there were genuine disputes of fact about notice/constructive notice that should go to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer had notice of coworker sexual harassment such that it can be liable under Title VII | Wilson: she informed supervisors (Adams, McConnell) repeatedly before HR investigation; supervisors discouraged HR complaints | County: Wilson’s own HR statements concede she avoided reporting; supervisors didn’t have actual knowledge of the full allegations | Held for County: court found Wilson’s HR statements showed she did not give adequate notice; when County learned, it acted reasonably |
| Sufficiency of employer’s remedial response after HR investigation | Wilson: County’s subsequent measures were inadequate because Putman still had opportunities to contact/assault her | County: response (suspension, warning, transfer, counseling, later another transfer) was prompt and reasonable; no strict liability | Held for County: remedies were reasonably calculated to stop harassment |
| Whether prior reports/incidents gave constructive notice of Putman’s propensity to sexually harass | Wilson: prior incidents (Spurrier’s report, Putman’s prior discipline/firing) put County on notice it should have anticipated risk | County: prior incidents reflected temperament or non-sexual misconduct; not sufficiently similar to create constructive notice | Held for County: prior incidents insufficient to establish constructive notice |
| State-law tort claims (negligent supervision/retention, battery, IIED) premised on employer knowledge/failure to act | Wilson: same factual basis — County knew or should have known and failed to prevent/stop battery and emotional harm | County: lacked actual/constructive knowledge; once informed, it acted promptly | Held for County: summary judgment affirmed because no triable issue on notice or inadequate response (majority); dissent would reverse on Title VII and state torts |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (employer liability principles and prophylactic purpose of harassment law)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (standards for hostile work environment and employer liability)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (encouraging anti-harassment policies and grievance mechanisms)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (objective standard for severe or pervasive harassment)
- Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (constructive notice when employer fails to provide reasonable reporting procedures)
- EEOC v. Xerxes Corp., 639 F.3d 658 (reasonableness of employer’s remedial response to coworker harassment)
- Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559 (employee’s responsibility to notify employer of coworker harassment)
- Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946 (sham-affidavit doctrine and limits on creating disputes via inconsistent statements)