Chantal Lacasse v. Didlake, Inc.
712 F. App'x 231
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Lacasse, a supported- employment Didlake janitor with epilepsy and learning disabilities, alleged Project Manager Roy Evo kissed her in a supply closet on Aug. 15, 2013. She reported the incident days later to co-workers; Evo self‑reported to HR after hearing the allegation.
- Didlake promptly investigated: HR interviewed Lacasse, Evo, and witnesses; placed Lacasse on paid administrative leave during the probe; and later returned her to work with accommodations (cell‑phone exception, pairing with female coworker).
- Government investigators conducted a separate inquiry and suspended Evo’s base access; Evo resigned. Didlake rewarded Lacasse for improved productivity but later disciplined her four times (Dec. 2013–Apr. 2014) for inappropriate workplace conduct, culminating in a three‑day paid suspension. Lacasse resigned May 19, 2014.
- Lacasse sued Didlake asserting state tort claims (assault, battery, false imprisonment, IIED) under respondeat superior, Title VII hostile work environment, Title VII retaliation (abandoned on appeal), ADA discrimination and ADA retaliation (abandoned on appeal).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Didlake on all counts; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondeat superior liability for Evo's alleged sexual assault | Evo's assault occurred at work; employer should be liable for employee torts | Evo's conduct was personal, outside scope of employment | Held for Didlake: assault was outside scope; no respondeat superior liability |
| Title VII hostile work environment (sexual harassment) | Evo’s conduct created abusive conditions imputable to employer | Didlake had anti‑harassment policies/training and promptly investigated; Lacasse failed to use reporting channels | Held for Didlake: Faragher–Ellerth defense applies (reasonable prevention/correction and Lacasse unreasonably failed to follow complaint procedure) |
| ADA discrimination / constructive discharge | Counseling and suspension after her complaint were punitive given her cognitive disability, forcing her to quit | Discipline responded to repeated inappropriate workplace behavior and was corrective, not deliberate to force resignation | Held for Didlake: no deliberate action nor objectively intolerable conditions to support constructive discharge/ADA claim |
| Sufficiency of employer's investigation and corrective steps | Investigation allegedly inadequate and discipline targeted Lacasse | Investigation was prompt, included interviews and administrative leave; accommodations were provided on return | Held for Didlake: investigation and remedial measures were reasonable; employer met burden under Title VII affirmative defense and ADA standards |
Key Cases Cited
- T–Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of City of Newport News, 674 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (U.S. 2013) (supervisor harassment liability and Faragher–Ellerth scheme)
- Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer affirmative defense elements)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (employer affirmative defense elements)
- Gina Chin & Assocs., Inc. v. First Union Bank, 537 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 2000) (scope‑of‑employment / respondeat superior framework under Virginia law)
- Blair v. Def. Servs., Inc., 386 F.3d 623 (4th Cir. 2004) (employee sexual assault outside scope of employment)
- Plummer v. Ctr. Psychiatrists, Ltd., 476 S.E.2d 172 (Va. 1996) (employer liability where tort occurs in course of job duties)