Erika Bazemore v. Best Buy
957 F.3d 195
4th Cir.2020Background:
- On Feb. 5, 2017, coworker Anne Creel made a racially and sexually charged joke in front of Erika Bazemore (an African‑American woman) by referring to a Brazil nut as a racialized sexual slur; Bazemore walked away and later reported the incident to Best Buy HR.
- Bazemore alleges she felt humiliated, avoided Creel and the general manager, and suffered psychological and physical effects; she reported the incident to Best Buy HR on Feb. 6.
- Best Buy’s HR investigator contacted Bazemore within days; Creel admitted the remark and received a final written warning on Feb. 18; Bazemore alleges she saw no meaningful change in the store’s atmosphere.
- Bazemore filed an EEOC charge (late March); EEOC issued a right‑to‑sue letter after being unable to conclude a Title VII violation; Bazemore sued Best Buy pro se for a hostile work environment under Title VII.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding Bazemore failed to plausibly allege that Creel’s conduct was imputable to Best Buy (i.e., that the employer knew or should have known and failed to take reasonable action to stop it); the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a co‑worker's racially/sexually offensive comment is imputable to the employer for Title VII hostile‑work‑environment liability | Bazemore: she reported the remark; Best Buy’s response was inadequate and did not stop the hostile atmosphere | Best Buy: HR investigated promptly, disciplined Creel (final written warning), and the conduct ceased; employer not liable | Court: Imputability not shown—employee must allege employer knew (or should have known) and failed to take action reasonably calculated to stop harassment; here Best Buy acted and the conduct ceased, so no liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring factual plausibility)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (elements of hostile work environment under Title VII)
- Boyer‑Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (hostile‑work‑environment elements in Fourth Circuit)
- Strothers v. City of Laurel, 895 F.3d 317 (4th Cir. 2018) (imputability standard for coworker harassment: employer knew or should have known and failed to take reasonable action)
- Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc., 791 F.3d 488 (4th Cir. 2015) (same imputability principle for coworker harassment)
- E.E.O.C. v. Xerxes Corp., 639 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2011) (employer not liable where remedial action was prompt and reasonably calculated to stop harassment)