Hoyle v. FREIGHTLINER, LLC, 650 F.3d 321

Background

Hoyle began at Freightliner in 1988 as a tractor trailer assembler at the Mt. Holly plant; women were under 10% of the workforce.
Freightliner had anti-harassment and internet use policies; Hoyle reported multiple sexualized incidents in 2005, including tampon on a truck, sexually explicit calendars, and nude screen saver.
Supervisors and HR investigated some reports; no employees were disciplined for harassment.
In November 2005, Hoyle logged a nude screensaver; shortly after, she was involuntarily moved to a 5-S janitorial role and later terminated following a last-chance agreement for time off.
Hoyle filed Title VII and state-law claims in 2007; discovery later revealed Williams’ porn materials at work and a belated Williams declaration used in opposition to summary judgment.
The district court struck Williams' declaration and granted summary judgment; the Fourth Circuit vacated in part and remanded for trial on the hostile environment claim, denying other claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Williams declaration was properly struck under Rule 37(c)(1)	Hoyle argues non-disclosure was substantially justified or harmless	Freightliner contends Williams was untimely disclosed and prejudicial	Sanction affirmed; no abuse of discretion
Whether Hoyle's hostile work environment claim should prevail as to sex-based harassment	Photos, calendars, tampon incident, and screensaver show sex-based hostility	Evidence viewed in isolation; insufficient to show severe or pervasive harassment	Hostile environment claim vacated for trial due to misapplication of severity/pervasiveness
Whether Hoyle's disparate treatment claim on discriminatory discharge fails as a matter of law	Last-chance agreement and absenteeism unevenly applied; similarly situated men treated differently	Hoyle failed to identify a similarly situated male with comparable misconduct under a last-chance agreement	Claim fails because no similarly situated comparator identified
Whether Freightliner retaliated against Hoyle for complaints	Reassignment to 5-S and termination following complaints constitute adverse actions with causation	Actions were legitimate and non-discriminatory	District court's grant of summary judgment affirmed on retaliation
Whether Hoyle can sustain a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim	Termination and harassment could foreseeably cause severe distress	Ordinary employment termination is typically insufficient for NIED	Claim failed as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

Southern States Rack and Fixture v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) (factors for Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions and harmlessness inquiry)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (S. Ct. 1998) (hostile environment standard: sex-based discrimination can occur without sexual advances)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile environment framework and terms, conditions, and privileges of employment)
Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2003) (sex-based harassment can be shown by targeted conduct or environment)
Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100 (4th Cir. 1989) (question of severity/pervasiveness for hostile environment is fact-intensive)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (cumulative effect and standard for hostile environment review)
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (material adversity standard for retaliation claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (ultimate burden of persuasion remains with plaintiff; pretext framework)
Dwyer v. Smith, 867 F.2d 184 (4th Cir. 1989) (district court standards on harassment evidence at summary judgment vs. trial)
Wilson v. Tulsa Junior College, 164 F.3d 534 (10th Cir. 1998) (employer liability for coworker harassment and constructive knowledge)