Davis v. Vermont, Department of Corrections
868 F. Supp. 2d 313
D. Vt.2012Background
- Davis, a Vermont Department of Corrections guard (2005–2010), alleges harassment based on sex, disability, and gender stereotyping, plus retaliation after complaining.
- In Jan 2009, he received emails with images referencing his groin; inmates and staff saw them.
- He underwent hernia surgery in Feb 2009 and took four weeks of leave, reporting harassment to union and seeking treatment.
- After investigation, Davis faced unfriendly conduct; anonymous taunts and inmate ridicule continued.
- A note stated “How’s your nuts/kill yourself/you’re done,” and a later cartoon showed a gun to the head with “kill yourself.”
- Davis filed suit in June 2011 (first under Civil Rights Act and ADA; later amended to include Rehabilitation Act and VFEPA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity bar on ADA Title V retaliation | Davis claims Title V retaliation against a state entity. | State immunity bars ADA Title V retaliation claims. | Count seven dismissed for Eleventh Amendment immunity. |
| Hostile work environment due to sex and disability under Title VII/VFEPA/Rehabilitation Act | Harassment by emails, images, and inmate taunts created a hostile environment based on sex and disability. | Some acts don’t show discrimination “because of sex” or disability; gaps in evidence. | Counts 2, 9 (sex) and 3, 10 (sex) dismissed; counts 4, 11 (gender stereotyping) survive; disability-based claims via Rehabilitation Act/VFEPA survive in part. |
| Disability-based harassment under the Rehabilitation Act and VFEPA | Alleged actual disability or history of impairment supports coverage. | Defs argue transitory/minor impairment defense and lack of current disability. | Court finds sufficient pleadings for actual disability or record-of-impairment/“regarded as” theory to proceed. |
| Retaliation claims under Title VII, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and VFEPA | Protected activity (union complaint, incident reports) caused adverse actions. | Need for materially adverse action and causal link; some actions temporally distant. | Counts 5, 6, 12 survive; ADA retaliation claim dismissed on jurisdiction grounds; proximity supports causality for some actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court 1998) (establishes routes to prove harassment based on sex)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court 1989) (gender stereotyping as a basis for discrimination)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Supreme Court 1998) (objective standard for hostile work environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1993) (multi-factor test for hostility severity)
- Beckford v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 605 F.3d 951 (11th Cir. 2010) (employer liability for harassment by inmates/third parties)
- Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (standards under Rehabilitation Act analogous to ADA)
- Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Ext., 252 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 2001) (causal connection in retaliation with temporal proximity)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court 2006) (retaliation standard—materially adverse action)