Ariel Schlosser v. VRHabilis, LLC, 113 F.4th 674

Ariel Schlosser was employed by VRHabilis, LLC (VRH) as the only female diver for a UXO remediation project and alleged she faced discriminatory treatment and harassment based on her gender during her ten-week employment.
Schlosser was singled out for additional tests, removed from dive rotation after an initial poor performance while male counterparts were not similarly treated, and lost driving privileges for conduct for which male divers were not disciplined.
Schlosser faced daily verbal abuse and derogatory comments from two supervisors, Sanders and Brouse, often with gender-specific insults and threats to her employment; reports to management were met with insufficient remedial action.
After exhausting administrative remedies, Schlosser sued VRH for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII; the jury found in her favor only on the hostile work environment claim and awarded back pay.
VRH moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), arguing the evidence could not support the jury’s verdict; the district court denied the motion and VRH appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether harassment was based on Schlosser’s sex or gender	Treatment and insults were gender-based; only female diver faced specific hostility and adverse actions	Actions were not based on sex, but performance/personality; only verbal abuse at issue	Sufficient evidence for jury to find gender-based harassment
Whether harassment was severe or pervasive	Harassment and ostracization occurred daily, affecting work conditions and pay	Incidents were isolated or not pervasive/severe	Evidence sufficient for jury to find harassment was severe and pervasive
Whether employer is liable for supervisor’s conduct	Sanders had tangible employment action power, harassment led to pay loss, VRH failed to stop abuse	Any remedial action was sufficient; no tangible employment action; Schlosser did not fully report	VRH strictly liable due to Sanders’ power and failure to prevent harassment
Whether employer is liable for co-worker’s conduct	Brouse’s harassment was known to supervisors who did nothing	Schlosser failed to report, so no employer notice	VRH liable due to constructive notice and lack of corrective action

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (sets standard for severe or pervasive harassment under Title VII)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (harassment motivated by gender, not just sexual desire, actionable)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (hostile environment claims based on cumulative acts)
Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (employer liability for hostile work environment)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (affirmative defense for employer liability in harassment by supervisors)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (tangible employment action and vicarious liability for supervisors)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (defines supervisor for purposes of employer liability under Title VII)
Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 1999) (totality of circumstances in hostile work environment analysis)
Smith v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc., 813 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2016) (jury deference on hostile environment claims)