Dozier-Nix v. District of Columbia
851 F. Supp. 2d 163
D.D.C.2012Background
- Dozier-Nix and Bailey were DPW employees; Bailey supervised the yard where Dozier-Nix worked.
- Dozier-Nix alleges Bailey made sexually suggestive looks, touched her, made explicit comments, and pressured for sex in Oct 2007 and Jan 2008.
- Dozier-Nix reported harassment to union officials who were not supervisors; she also informed her DPW supervisor, Armstrong, in Oct 2007.
- In Feb 2008 Dozier-Nix tape-recorded Bailey making explicit statements and gave the recording to Armstrong.
- DPW investigated; Bailey was terminated about four months after the recording.
- Dozier-Nix filed a June 2008 EEOC charge alleging sexual harassment and retaliation; she amended the complaint in Sept 2009 to include hostile work environment and retaliation counts against DC
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hostile environment claim survives summary judgment | Dozier-Nix claims DPW failed to prevent/correct harassment and failed to take timely action | DPW policy and prompt actions show reasonable care; Dozier-Nix did not use available remedies effectively | Disputed facts bar summary judgment on Count 1 |
| Whether the retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Rebuffing advances was protected conduct and alleged retaliation followed | No protected action or causation; issues of exhaustion and retaliation failure | Disputed facts bar complete judgment on Count 2; denial of summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for harassment; Faragher/Ellerth framework)
- Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for harassment; affirmative defense if policies exist and employee unreasonably fails to use them)
- Graham v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2009) (totality of circumstances; conduct must be extreme to alter terms of employment)
- Winston v. Clough, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (elements of hostile work environment and role of employer responsibility)
- Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (employer can avoid liability if preventive measures and employee’s failure to use them)
- Ogden v. Wax Works, 214 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2000) (protective activity can be protected)
- Franklin v. Potter, 600 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2009) (extents of hostile environment standard in district court)