Cynthia Fuller v. Idaho Dept. of Corrections
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13818
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cynthia Fuller, an IDOC probation and parole officer, was raped multiple times in Aug–Sept 2011 by a male co-worker, Herbt Cruz; those assaults occurred off‑premises.
- IDOC had prior complaints about Cruz; after a separate rape allegation he was placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation, and supervisors expressed support for him to staff.
- After Fuller reported the assaults and showed injury photos, supervisors interviewed her, learned Cruz had a “history of this kind of behavior,” but supervisors nonetheless sent staff messages encouraging contact with Cruz and expressing hope he would return.
- Fuller sought paid administrative leave and other protections; IDOC denied paid leave under its SOP (while Cruz received paid leave), did not notify staff of Fuller’s protective order, and limited disclosures pending investigation.
- Fuller returned to work on modified duty, faced coworker ostracism, resigned, then sued under Title VII (hostile work environment and sex discrimination) and other claims; district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the hostile‑work‑environment claim.
- The Ninth Circuit majority vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial on Fuller’s Title VII hostile work environment claim; Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing no triable issue that IDOC acted “because of sex.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDOC’s responses to Fuller’s off‑premises rapes created a hostile work environment under Title VII | Fuller: supervisors’ public/internal support for Cruz, denial of paid leave (while Cruz got paid leave), failure to notify staff of protective order, and coworker ostracism cumulatively altered her workplace and were because of sex | IDOC: rapes occurred off‑premises; agency took neutral, lawful actions (investigated, kept Cruz off premises, followed SOP on leave and confidentiality); no evidence of sex‑based disparate treatment | Majority: triable issues exist — viewed in plaintiff’s favor a reasonable juror could find the employer’s conduct was sufficiently severe/pervasive and condoned the rapist, so remand for trial on hostile work environment claim |
| Employer liability theory | Fuller: vicarious liability — supervisors’ actions/communications created the hostile environment | IDOC: disputes scope but did not contest supervisory status; argues actions were neutral and remedial | Held: supervisors were within scope and if jury finds they created hostile environment, IDOC vicariously liable (issue for jury) |
| Whether Title VII requires workplace nexus (assaults must occur at work) to support hostile‑environment claim | Fuller: employer’s reactions (even to off‑premises assault) can constitute sex discrimination if they condone/ratify the assault and its effects | IDOC/Dissent: Little limited to workplace assaults; off‑premises assaults + neutral remediation do not give rise to Title VII liability | Held: Court relied on Little and other precedent to allow an employer‑response theory — off‑premises rape plus employer conduct that effectively condones or reinforces the assault can support a Title VII hostile environment claim (triable issue) |
| Summary judgment standard application | Fuller: factual conflicts and inferences must be drawn in her favor; evidence suffices to avoid summary judgment | IDOC/Dissent: record, taken as a whole, does not permit a rational jury to infer discrimination because of sex; many neutral/undisputed facts undermine plaintiff’s theory | Held: Majority applied standard in plaintiff’s favor and found genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment; dissent argued majority improperly ignored undisputed record and statutory “because of sex” requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive)
- Little v. Windermere Relocation, 301 F.3d 958 (9th Cir.) (employer response to rape can create hostile work environment)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (Title VII requires discrimination "because of sex"; multiple evidentiary routes)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Title VII covers hostile work environment sexual harassment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer liability framework for hostile environment)
- Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment and cumulative‑conduct analysis in hostile environment claims)
- Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Prods., 847 F.3d 678 (9th Cir.) (hostile work environment need not cause diagnosed injury; relevance of employer negligence and supervisor conduct)
- Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir.) (isolated incidents and prompt remedial action considerations)