Cynthia Fuller v. Idaho Dept. of Corrections
694 F. App'x 590
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Cynthia Fuller, an IDOC employee, was raped by a co-worker and romantic partner, Herb Cruz, outside the workplace. Cruz was placed on leave during a criminal investigation into unrelated non-work conduct.
- Fuller sued the Idaho Department of Corrections and supervisors alleging: hostile work environment (Title VII), constructive discharge, gender-based denial of paid administrative leave (Title VII), equal protection ( §1983), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Idaho tort law).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; this appeal followed.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated summary judgment only as to Fuller’s claim that post-rape IDOC actions produced a hostile work environment; it affirmed summary judgment on all other claims.
- Key factual bases for the court: the rapes occurred off-site after Cruz had been removed from the workplace; IDOC had informed staff Cruz was not permitted on premises and to notify supervisors; IDOC had a longstanding budgetary rule denying paid administrative leave in “unusual” situations.
- For the state tort claim, many alleged pre-suit acts were time-barred under Idaho’s statute of limitations, and the acts within the limitations period were not unreasonable as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (Title VII) | Off-site rapes and IDOC’s post-rape conduct created a hostile work environment | Rapes were off-site, Cruz was on leave and did not harass at work; employer conduct did not alter employment conditions | Vacated summary judgment only as to claim that IDOC’s post-rape actions contributed to a hostile work environment (remand on that portion) |
| Constructive discharge | IDOC’s refusal to notify staff about Fuller’s sealed protective order made working conditions intolerable | Cruz had been removed; staff were told he was prohibited and to call supervisors; conditions not intolerable | Affirmed summary judgment for IDOC (no constructive discharge) |
| Denial of paid administrative leave (Title VII) | Denial was motivated by gender discrimination | IDOC uniformly denied paid leave for “unusual” situations for budgetary reasons; no evidence of gender-based disparate treatment | Affirmed summary judgment for IDOC (no evidence leave denial was because of gender) |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (Idaho) | Supervisor actions after report supported NIED claim | Many acts predate limitations period; acts within limitations were not unreasonable | Affirmed summary judgment: pre-suit acts time-barred; remaining acts not unreasonable under Idaho law |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir.) (defining workplace-related hostile environment requirement)
- Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) (constructive discharge standard: intolerable working conditions)
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) (denial of employment "privilege" must be discriminatory to violate Title VII)
- Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (requirement to show similarly situated employees treated more favorably)
- Cobbley v. City of Challis, 59 P.3d 959 (Idaho 2002) (statute of limitations and continuing tort analysis)
- Frogley v. Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. 2, 314 P.3d 613 (Idaho 2013) (reasonableness standard for negligent conduct by supervisors)
- Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.) (equal protection claim requires proof of discrimination)