Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America
673 F.3d 323
4th Cir.2012Background
- Dulaney, a PCA employee in Roanoke, alleges Mills, a lead production worker with supervisory-like authority, sexually harassed her on and after 2006.
- Mills could assign work, discipline, and access restricted areas; he interacted with Dulaney and allegedly demanded sex in exchange for job benefits.
- Dulaney reported harassment; management responses were inconsistent and sometimes dismissive, contributing to a hostile environment.
- In Sept. to Nov. 2007, Dulaney faced escalated harassment; Mills allegedly taunted, screamed, and spread rumors, while Dulaney’s coworker relations deteriorated.
- PCA offered a severance agreement; Dulaney declined to sign, was escorted off premises, and payroll stopped; PCA later stated she was terminated in internal records.
- District court granted PCA summary judgment under Faragher-Ellerth defense, finding no tangible employment action and employee failure to use preventive avenues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mills a supervisor for purposes of Faragher-Ellerth? | Dulaney contends Mills was her supervisor affecting liability. | PCA argues Brown and related rulings show no nexus necessary if action by harasser was not supervisory. | Issue undecided; court remands for factual determination as to supervisor status and nexus. |
| Did PCA take a tangible employment action against Dulaney? | Summary actions (escorting off premises, pay termination indications) show termination. | Severance terms and later clarification letters negate a tangible action. | Genuine factual dispute exists on termination status; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| If there was a tangible action, does Faragher-Ellerth apply given harassment? | Even with a supervisor, hostile conduct causally linked to termination undermines defense. | Defense existing if harassment was separate from the action and employer acted promptly. | Remanded to assess nexus between harassment and the termination; defense not resolved. |
| Is there a sufficient nexus between Mills's harassment and Dulaney's termination to defeat the Faragher-Ellerth defense? | Bourne's hostile conduct and termination sequence imply nexus. | No clear nexus shown; termination could be independent. | There is a factual dispute on nexus; cannot grant summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (establishes Faragher-Ellerth defense framework)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (requires tangible action analysis for supervisor harassment)
- Brown v. Perry, 184 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 1999) (nexus required between harassment and tangible action)
- James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (discriminatory evaluation may be actionable if later used for tangible action)
- Whitten v. Fred's, Inc., 601 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 2010) (supervisor vs. non-supervisor distinction in liability)
- Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment standard and evaluation of evidence)