421 F. App'x 204
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Griffin, an African-American, worked as a security officer for HPS supervised by Kimble, a Caucasian.
- In mid-2007 Kimble allegedly made racially offensive remarks about Black people and AIDS, and sent Griffin an offensive CD.
- On Oct. 16, 2007 Kimble texted Griffin a racially offensive message; Griffin confronted him and considered reporting it to HR.
- Griffin filed a harassment/discrimination complaint with HR on Oct. 19, 2007; an HR investigation began Oct. 22, 2007 and Griffin requested a transfer.
- Simmons’s investigation found Kimble sent an inappropriate joke; Kimble was disciplined and Griffin transferred to a different HPS location.
- Griffin pursued EEOC charges in Dec. 2007 and May 2008, and filed suit in Sept. 2008 alleging Title VII and § 1981 claims; discovery closed June 1, 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HPS is liable for hostile work environment under Title VII/§1981 | Griffin argues persistent harassment created a hostile environment. | HPS contends no genuine issue on liability due to lack of supervisor status and adequate remedial action. | Affirm summary judgment; no material fact shows HPS liable. |
| Whether Kimble was a supervisor for employer liability purposes | Griffin treated Kimble as supervisor. | HPS argues Kimble lacks management authority to hire/fire or direct daily work as a true supervisor. | Kimble was not a supervisor for Ellerth/Faragher liability; proceed on co-worker standard. |
| Whether HPS provided adequate remedial action for harassment by a co-worker | Griffin contends remedial steps were insufficient. | HPS instituted investigation, transfer, discipline, and diversity training promptly. | Remedial action was adequate; no genuine issue of material fact on liability. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the retaliation claim | Griffin sought to add a retaliation claim after discovery. | The delay and potential prejudice justified denial of amendment. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether punitive damages could be considered given no liability established | Griffin seeks punitive damages for intent. | No liability established and malice not shown; punitive damages unavailable. | Barred; punitive damages not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Co., 568 F.3d 100 (3d Cir. 2009) (assessing supervisor vs. co-worker harasser and remedial action adequacy)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (vicarious liability and affirmative defense for no tangible employment action)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for harassment by employees in absence of tangible action)
- Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 2007) (implied reasoning on remedial action timing and adequacy)
- Knabe v. Boury Corp., 114 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 1997) (adequacy of remedial action to prevent further harassment)
- Jensen v. Potter, 435 F.3d 444 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of hostile work environment under Title VII/§1981)
- Parkins v. Civil Constructors, 163 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1998) (definition scope of supervisor for liability purposes)
- Mack v. Otis Elevator Co., 326 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003) (Second Circuit broader supervisor authority against direct action power threshold)