27 F.4th 67
1st Cir.2022Background
- Emily Forsythe worked at Wayfair (hired Jan 2017) and in Aug–Sept 2019 complained of coworker Michael McDole's sexualized conduct (touching and inappropriate comments).
- Wayfair Talent Management investigator Trevor Shaffer‑Figueroa probed the allegations, concluded the touching allegations were "unsubstantiated," and informed Forsythe of that finding on Sept. 16–19, 2019.
- On Sept. 19 Forsythe (recording the call) requested Wayfair "put together a compelling severance package" and said she would have counsel review any proposal; she did not expressly state an unconditional resignation.
- On Sept. 23 Shaffer‑Figueroa emailed Forsythe a separation/severance agreement stating Wayfair had "accepted her resignation;" Forsythe did not later contemporaneously object and her last workday was Sept. 23–24.
- Forsythe filed EEOC/state charges (Oct. and Dec. 2019) alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and sex discrimination; the district court granted Wayfair summary judgment on all claims.
- The First Circuit: affirmed summary judgment on the negligent‑failure‑to‑remedy sexual harassment claims, but reversed and remanded as to retaliation and gender disparate‑treatment (termination) claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employer liability for coworker sexual harassment (failure to remedy) | Wayfair negligently failed to remedy McDole's sexual touching and hostile conduct | Wayfair conducted a reasonable investigation and reasonably found touching allegations unsubstantiated | Affirmed for Wayfair — investigation not so deficient as to preclude reliance; failure to ask about outside corroboration alone not dispositive |
| Retaliation (Title VII) — adverse action and causation | Forsythe engaged in protected complaints and was involuntarily terminated in close temporal proximity (Sept. 19 complaint; Sept. 23 termination) | Forsythe voluntarily offered to resign when seeking a severance; Wayfair legitimately accepted resignation | Reversed — triable issues: reasonable juror could find she did not offer to resign, temporal proximity supports causation, and Wayfair's resignation explanation may be implausible (pretext) |
| Gender disparate treatment (termination) | Termination was motivated by sex; replaced in part by a male colleague | Wayfair reasonably thought she resigned; legitimate non‑discriminatory reason | Reversed — triable issues on pretext and discriminatory motive given falsity/implausibility of Wayfair's stated reason and evidence of a male assuming some duties |
| Adequacy of HR investigation / reliance on denials | Investigator relied largely on accused's denials and failed to pursue external corroboration | Investigator interviewed all witnesses identified by Forsythe and pursued available leads | Affirmed for Wayfair re: liability — failure to specifically ask about outside corroboration not legally fatal where investigator pursued identified leads |
Key Cases Cited
- Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 741 F.3d 310 (1st Cir. 2014) (elements for hostile‑work‑environment and employer liability framework)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2005) (employer liability standard for coworker harassment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile work environment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext analysis and proof on mixed‑motive/retaliation claims)