Connie Orton-Bell v. State of Indiana
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13993
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Orton-Bell, a substance abuse counselor at Pendleton (a max-security prison), faced ongoing sexualized conduct from male staff and inattentive supervision.
- She learned night-shift staff used her desk for sex; investigators advised she wash it, and superiors stated they did not care as long as offenders were not involved.
- Orton-Bell had an affair with Major Ditmer, a custody leader; both were married but separated, and both were investigated for conduct violating DOC ethics and standards.
- Orton-Bell and Ditmer were suspended and then terminated; Ditmer settled his SEAC appeal and retained benefits, while Orton-Bell’s appeal did not succeed.
- She sued Indiana under Title VII alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for the state.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed in part (discrimination and hostile environment) and affirmed in part (retaliation), remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a triable hostile-work-environment claim based on sex-based harassment. | Orton-Bell's desk-sex and pervasive sex-based comments show sex discrimination. | Inaction was not shown to be sex-based; comments were not proven to be due to her sex. | Hostile environment claim survives for remarks; sex-on-desk incident insufficient to prove sex-based motive. |
| Whether Orton-Bell proved a prima facie sex-discrimination case under the indirect method. | Ditmer is a valid comparator; Orton-Bell treated less favorably for the same misconduct. | Differences in role and circumstances justify disparate treatment; no clear comparator. | Discrimination claim survives to be tried; Ditmer is reasonably similarly situated and treated more favorably. |
| Whether the retaliation claim fails for lack of protected activity. | Complaint about sex on her desk constitutes protected activity. | Complaint did not show protected class-based discrimination or linkage to sex. | Retaliation claim fails because no protected activity tied to sex discrimination. |
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claim given supervisor inaction. | Failure to remedy pervasive harassment supports employer liability. | Summary judgment should be granted if elements for liability are not satisfied. | Reversal on hostile environment for failure to remedy; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court 1998) (discrimination can be inferred even without sexual intent in hostile environment)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (Supreme Court 2013) (harassment must be objectively and subjectively offensive; supervisor liability standards)
- Passananti v. Cook Cnty., 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (employer liability defenses in hostile-work-environment claims)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (applies indirect-method framework for Title VII discrimination)
- Boumedi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (frequency/severity of sex-based comments can establish hostile environment)
- Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1993) (context of pervasive harassment impacting work environment)
- Wyninger v. New Venture Gear, Inc., 361 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2004) (pervasiveness of vulgar banter can render it actionable)