David Hylko, Jr. v. John Hemphill, 698 F. App'x 298

Plaintiff David Hylko, Jr., a shift manager at a U.S. Steel plant, alleged repeated sexual comments and physical touching by coworker/process coordinator John Hemphill (groping, a penile grab in an elevator, and a banana-in-zipper prank).
Hylko reported the conduct to two HR managers, his Area Manager (Jobin), and his Division Manager (Gunnell). U.S. Steel offered Hylko a transfer, which he accepted.
After an investigative meeting, Hemphill admitted to grabbing Hylko’s behind and the banana incident (not specifically the elevator penile-grab), and he received a verbal warning, one-week suspension, demotion to shift manager, and leadership training.
The disciplinary measures and Hylko’s transfer stopped the harassment; Hylko resigned a few months later and sued Hemphill and U.S. Steel for sexual harassment under Title VII and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and focused on employer vicarious liability for harassment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employer is vicariously liable because harasser was a "supervisor" under Title VII	Hemphill exercised supervisory control over Hylko (trained him, assigned duties) and was referred to as his supervisor	Hemphill lacked power to take tangible employment actions (could not hire/fire/promote/demote); only could recommend discipline	Not a supervisor under Vance; no vicarious liability for U.S. Steel
Whether a reasonable belief that harasser was a supervisor saves the claim	Hylko contends he reasonably believed Hemphill was his supervisor	Employer argues legal definition controls; argument was not raised below	Waived on appeal; cannot rely on Ellerth/ Burlington defense here
Whether employer is liable for coworker harassment because its response was unreasonable	Hylko says U.S. Steel treated Hemphill leniently compared to men who harassed women	Employer argues response (transfer + discipline) was reasonably calculated to stop harassment and it did stop	Employer response was adequate under Waldo; no liability
Whether harassment created a hostile work environment (for completeness)	Harassment was pervasive and severe (sexual touching and comments)	No dispute harassment occurred, but resolution focuses on vicarious liability and employer response sufficiency	Court did not find basis to reverse summary judgment based on hostile-environment analysis because vicarious liability/response ruled for employer

Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (defines Title VII "supervisor" as one empowered to take tangible employment actions)
Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (employer affirmative defense when supervisor creates hostile work environment absent tangible employment action)
Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., 726 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2013) (employer response is adequate if reasonably calculated to end harassment)
Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 759 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2014) (issues not raised in district court are waived on appeal)
Clark v. United Parcel Serv., 400 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2005) (elements of a Title VII sexual-harassment hostile-work-environment claim)