Hedgeman v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C., 2011 WL 2036968

Hedgeman, an employee at Austal USA, alleges race discrimination and harassment under Title VII and §1981 across two employment terms starting 2006, culminating in a hostile environment and discriminatory promotion claims; Austal moved for summary judgment.”
Austal USA is an Australian shipbuilder with a structured Operations Division (Aluminum, Electrical, Engineering, Fit Out).
Hedgeman’s first term (Jan 2006–May 2007) and second term (Jan 2008–May 2009) included multiple raises, a subsequent layoff, and a later rehire, with extensive alleged racist conduct by co-workers and supervisors.
Hedgeman reported numerous incidents through Austal’s reporting channels; Austal provided some responses and periodic corrective actions, with graffiti, Confederate imagery, and derogatory language continuing.
Key issue is whether Hedgeman exhausted administrative remedies and whether the alleged conduct was hostile enough to be actionable under Title VII/§1981, and whether Austal can be held liable under Faragher/Ellerth defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hedgeman failed to exhaust discrete Title VII promotion claims.	Hedgeman’s broader hostile environment claim encompasses post-2006 acts.	Discrete promotion acts post-2006 fall outside the EEOC charge scope.	Yes, discrete post-2006 promotion claims are time-barred.
Whether Hedgeman’s hostile work environment claim is timely under the continuing violation doctrine.	At least one act within filing period renders the claim timely.	Only timely acts within 180-day window count; pre-period acts are barred.	Hostile environment claim timely; pre-May 24, 2006 acts barred to the extent they are discrete.
Whether Hedgeman’s §1981 promotion claims survive against the evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons and pretext.	Caucasian coworkers received promotions; Hedgeman was qualified and allegedly denied.	Promotions based on prior experience; no proof of pretext.	§1981 step-up supervisor claims: disputed as to pretext; granted in part (promotion to welder/tester).
Whether Austal liable for harassment under Faragher/Ellerth and whether there are material facts to defeat the Faragher defense.	Despite reporting, harassment persisted; policy existed but training was inadequate.	Reasonable care to prevent/correct harassment and employee failure to utilize remedies.	There is a triable issue on liability and the Faragher defense; summary judgment denied on hostile environment claim.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts vs. hostile environment and continuing violation doctrine)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for supervisor harassment; Faragher defense)
Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (vicarious liability and Faragher defense framework)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (totality of circumstances; harassment need not show tangible job effects)
Reeves v. DSI Sec. Servs., Inc., 395 F. App’x 545 (11th Cir. 2010) (proof framework for discrimination claims; summary judgment standards)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (standard for severity of workplace harassment)
Morgan v. United States, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (contextual framework for continuing violation and timely acts)
Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886 (11th Cir. 2000) (liability principles for employer knowledge and remedial action)
Frederick v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 246 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (Faragher defense detailed considerations)