Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Breed Logistics
783 F.3d 1057
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- New Breed Logistics operated a Memphis warehouse where ~80% of workers were temporary and did not receive the employee handbook containing the harassment policy.
- James Calhoun, a Receiving supervisor, repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments and engaged in physical contact with temporary employees Tiffany Pete, Capricius Pearson, and Jacquelyn Hines; Christopher Partee witnessed/verbally opposed the conduct.
- Each of the four employees engaged in some form of opposition (telling Calhoun to stop or identifying witnesses) and were subsequently terminated or otherwise separated shortly thereafter.
- Investigations after an anonymous hotline call consisted primarily of interviewing Calhoun; HR did not interview several identified witnesses before some terminations occurred.
- A jury found New Breed liable under Title VII for both sexual harassment and retaliation and awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling over $1.5 million; the district court denied New Breed’s post-trial motions for JMOL and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether telling the harassing supervisor to stop is "protected activity" under Title VII’s opposition clause | Such direct complaints/requests to a harasser constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice and thus are protected | Complaining only to the harasser (resisting advances or "talking back") is not protected; protection should require complaint to management/official channels | Court: Complaints to the harasser qualify as protected opposition under the opposition clause (consistent with Crawford and circuit precedent) |
| Whether decisionmakers had knowledge of protected activity (and employer notice) and whether cat’s-paw liability applies | EEOC: Calhoun knew of complaints directed to him; his biased influence over supervisors (e.g., Malone) can make employer liable under cat’s-paw theory | New Breed: Relevant decisionmakers lacked knowledge of protected activity so adverse actions cannot be retaliatory | Court: Knowledge imputed where complaints were to the supervisor; evidence supported cat’s-paw inference that Calhoun influenced terminations, so employer notice/causal link could be found by the jury |
| Whether EEOC proved but-for causation for retaliation after Nassar | EEOC: close temporal proximity plus evidence of pretext and biased reports by Calhoun show but-for causation | New Breed: Temporal proximity alone is insufficient; legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (attendance, performance, time-clock issues) were the real reasons | Court: Jury could reasonably find but-for causation based on timing plus evidence undermining defendants’ proffered reasons; affirm denial of JMOL/new trial |
| Validity of punitive damages and jury instructions (Kolstad elements; causation instruction) | EEOC: Evidence shows malice/reckless indifference by Calhoun; Calhoun acted in managerial capacity; employer failed to effectively publish/enforce policy so punitive damages appropriate | New Breed: Jury wasn’t instructed on Kolstad’s affirmative good-faith defense; instructions misstated causation and employer-knowledge standards | Court: Punitive award supported—Calhoun acted with reckless indifference and was managerial; omission of the good-faith language was waived and not plain error; instructions sufficiently conveyed but-for causation and employer-knowledge (cat’s-paw context) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (defines "oppose" broadly for Title VII opposition clause)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (vicarious liability for supervisor harassment producing tangible employment action)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer affirmative defense when no tangible employment action)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standards for punitive damages under Title VII)
- EEOC v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc., 266 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2001) (employer liability and supervisor misconduct analysis)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s-paw/biased subordinate causation doctrine)
- Parker v. General Extrusions, Inc., 491 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) (assessment of employer's good-faith efforts and punitive-damages analysis)