Hysjulien v. Hill Top Home of Comfort, Inc.
2013 ND 38
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Hysjulien sued Hill Top Home of Comfort, Inc. and Armitage in 2010 alleging Title VII and North Dakota Human Rights Act discrimination and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; Hill Top employed Hysjulien from 1999 to September 30, 2008 as head of physical therapy.
- Alleged May 2005 sexual assault by Armitage at a work conference allegedly changed the work environment.
- January 2006 wage disparity favoring a male therapist alleged, with Armitage allegedly disparaging her and restricting hires.
- September 2008 termination of her department and position was communicated, with backdating purported termination notice claimed.
- July 2, 2009 Department complaint was dismissed as time-barred; EEOC issued right to sue on March 2, 2010; June 2010 suit followed.
- District court granted summary judgment against Hysjulien on all claims; Court reviews de novo for summary judgment and accrual timing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII/Human Rights Act claims | Hysjulien claims some acts fall within 300 days of filing; hostile environment may toll. | Actions are time-barred; either discrete acts or lack of timely hostile environment within period. | Partial reversal: hostile environment timely issue genuine dispute; discrete acts timing unresolved. |
| Notice of termination timing for statute accrual | Unequivocal termination notice may have occurred Sept 8, 2008; disputed | Notice deemed Sept 2, 2008 termination date; affidavits conflict. | Genuine issue of material fact on when unequivocally terminated; summary judgment on timing reversed. |
| Hostile environment vs. discrete acts | Alleged May 2005 assault and later conduct form continuing hostile environment. | Harassment constituted discrete acts beyond 300 days; no continuing environment. | District court erred in dismissing hostile environment claim as untimely; triable issue remains. |
| Intentional vs. negligent infliction of emotional distress | May 2005 incident could support IIED; evidence may show extreme conduct. | No substantial evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct; no intent/ reckless causation shown. | IIED claim as to Hill Top/Armitage is to proceed; NIED affirmed as barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts vs. hostile environment accrual and timing rules)
- Opp v. Source One Mgmt., Inc., 1999 ND 52 (N.D. 1999) (elements for hostile environment under ND Human Rights Act/Title VII; severity/pervasiveness standard)
- Jensen v. Henderson, 315 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2002) (hostile environment filing under Morgan; single practice approach)
- Rowe v. Hussmann Corp., 381 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2004) (timing of hostile environment acts within continuing practice)
- Stewart v. Booker T. Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 2000) (time accrual begins when termination is unequivocally communicated)
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1981) (accrual begins when employer’s official decision communicated)