Felicia A. Wilcox v. Corrections Corporation of America, 892 F.3d 1283

Wilcox, a corrections officer employed by Corrections Corporation of America, alleged coworker Larry Jackson sexually harassed her (slapped buttocks July 10, 2009; prior squeezes and remarks revealed later).
Wilcox filed a formal complaint July 10; company immediately told Jackson not to associate with her.
After continued intimidating gestures (eye-rolling, punching a machine) and a second complaint (July 23), the company retained an outside investigator who interviewed Wilcox on August 27 and reported misconduct on September 9.
Jackson was terminated on September 14. Wilcox filed an EEOC charge and sued under Title VII for hostile-work-environment sexual harassment.
A jury awarded Wilcox actual and punitive damages; the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the employer, finding the employer took prompt remedial action. Wilcox appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employer had knowledge or should have known of pervasive harassment	Wilcox: employer knew/should have known of extensive harassment (daily hugs and intimidating conduct)	CCA: employer had actual knowledge only of the July 10 complaint and later investigator report; no basis for constructive knowledge	Court: employer had actual knowledge of July 10 incident and investigator’s September findings; no constructive knowledge proven
Whether employer adopted/enforced an effective anti-discrimination policy	Wilcox: policy not vigorously enforced in her case	CCA: policy was comprehensive, known, and followed (complaints led to admonition, investigation, termination)	Court: policy was followed; its existence defeats constructive-knowledge liability
Whether employer took remedial action effective to prevent recurrence	Wilcox: company’s measures were inadequate—harasser continued intimidating behavior after complaint	CCA: measures prevented recurrence; Jackson did not touch Wilcox again after July 10	Court: remedial action was effective—no further touching occurred
Whether employer acted promptly in investigating and disciplining	Wilcox: six-week delay before investigator interview was unacceptably long	CCA: investigation involved multiple complaints, an out-of-state investigator, and interviews of many employees—delay reasonable	Court: given investigation’s scope and intermediate steps, employer acted promptly as a matter of law

Bogle v. Orange Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing JMOL and viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor)
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements of hostile-work-environment claim)
Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2012) (employer liability theories: vicarious vs. direct)
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (employer directly liable if it knew or should have known and failed to take prompt remedial action)
Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) (complaint to management can establish employer knowledge)
Farley v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 115 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1997) (employer insulated from constructive-knowledge liability when it has a comprehensive, well-known, and enforced anti-discrimination policy)
Kilgore v. Thompson & Brock Mgmt., Inc., 93 F.3d 752 (11th Cir. 1996) (remedial action must be reasonably likely to prevent recurrence)
Huddleston v. Roger Dean Chevrolet, Inc., 845 F.2d 900 (11th Cir. 1988) (example of acceptable prompt action: warning and eventual termination)