460 F. App'x 803
11th Cir.2012Background
- Guthrie, a white female waitress, worked for Waffle House in Lawrenceville, GA from Oct 31, 2007 to Sept 24, 2008.
- Barnett, a black cook, began employment mid-November 2007 and allegedly harassed Guthrie sexually and racially, including touching her and making explicit comments.
- Lawery, a black supervisor, began in Dec 2007 and allegedly harassed Guthrie sexually and racially starting August 2008, including pursuit of sexual advances and derogatory remarks about dating black men.
- Guthrie accused both Barnett and Lawery of harassment; she called the Waffle House Associate Hotline on Sept 23, 2008, but did not cooperate with the investigation.
- Guthrie left work on Sept 24, 2008 after an incident with Barnett; she was subsequently transferred to another Waffle House location.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Waffle House and Lawery on Guthrie's Title VII and state-law claims; Guthrie appeals arguing harassment was severe and pervasive and that the employer was negligent in retention and supervision and that Lawery’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guthrie proved a hostile environment under Title VII | Guthrie contends harassment was severe and pervasive. | Waffle House and Lawery argue conduct was not severe or pervasive enough. | Guthrie's claim fails; no material fact shows severe/pervasive harassment to alter terms of employment. |
| Whether Waffle House is liable for negligent retention/supervision | Employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to address it. | No underlying viable harassment claim; thus no negligent-retention liability. | No liability; derivative claim fails because underlying harassment claims do not prevail. |
| Whether Guthrie can sustain intentional infliction of emotional distress under Georgia law | Harassment was extreme and outrageous and caused distress. | Harassment was boorish but not extreme and outrageous; not within IIED bounds. | District court properly granted summary judgment; conduct not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (establishes subjective and objective elements for hostile environment)
- Reeves v. C.H. Robinson World Wide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (teasing/offhand comments not per se hostile environment; context matters)
- Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (frequency of harassment matters for hostile environment)
- Dees v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., 168 F.3d 417 (11th Cir. 1999) (almost-daily abuse can support hostile environment depending on facts)
- Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broadcasting Service, Inc., 234 F.3d 501 (11th Cir. 2000) (severe conduct analysis for harassment claims)
- Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants, LLC, 367 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2004) (severity examples for hostile environment)
- Lee v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 533 S.E.2d 82 (Ga. 2000) (Georgia law on emotional distress damages and physical impact requirements)
- Middlebrooks v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 256 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2001) (employer liability for known tendencies in supervision)
- Leo v. Waffle House, Inc., 681 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (negligent supervision/retention standard under Georgia law)
- Alpharetta First United Methodist Church v. Stewart, 472 S.E.2d 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (Georgia case on damages/intentional infliction context)
- Bridges v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc., 335 S.E.2d 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard)