Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, Inc.
737 F.3d 642
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Debord sued Mercy Health Services of Kansas for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII; alleging supervisor Weaver created a hostile workplace through touching and sexual remarks and Mercy failed to prevent or address it.
- Debord did not report harassment to management until July 2009, despite earlier incidents and Facebook posts in July 2009 that publicized concerns about pay and Weaver’s conduct.
- Mercy launched an investigation after July 8, 2009, led by HR Director Ammons and risk manager Brewster; Debord was terminated July 13, 2009 for disruption, dishonest conduct, and related issues.
- District court granted summary judgment against Debord on both harassment and retaliation claims; Mercy cross-appealed costs denial.
- The panel affirms the district court’s summary judgment for Mercy on harassment and retaliation, and remands to address Mercy’s costs—reversing the denial and directing a costs bill in Mercy’s favor.
- Key procedural posture includes summary judgment standard and de novo review of harassment/retaliation theories; Debord appeals the judgments and costs decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment liability—direct or vicarious | Debord contends Mercy knew or should have known of harassment and failed to stop it | Mercy did not have actual or constructive knowledge; policy and investigation were adequate | No genuine issue; Mercy not liable under direct or Faragher defenses |
| Faragher defense adequacy | Mercy failed to prevent and promptly correct harassment | Mercy adopted valid policies and acted promptly; delay by Debord was unreasonable | Faragher defense satisfied; no liability for harassment |
| Retaliation claim | Debord was terminated in retaliation for reporting harassment | Proffered reasons (disruptive behavior, dishonesty) were legitimate and nonpretextual | No pretext; reasons were honest and supported; no retaliation |
| Costs ruling on appeal | District court erred in denying costs | District court could deny costs under certain circumstances | District court’s reasoning inadequate; reversal and remand for a proper costs bill; Mercy entitled to costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile work environment framework; employer liability standards)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (employer vicarious liability and Faragher defense)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (Faragher defense elements for employer liability)
- Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2011) (two-part Faragher prevention/correction analysis; reasonable care policies)
- Pinkerton v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (promptness of corrective action and reporting delay standards)
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998) (constructive notice and campaign of harassment; evidence standard)
- Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2010) (constructive notice framework for harassment)
- Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (pretext analysis framework; subjective criteria not alone for pretext)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325 (2011) (oral complaints and internal grievance procedures; retaliation doctrine)