Jeffry Smith v. Rock-Tenn Services, Inc.
813 F.3d 298
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Smith worked in Rock-Tenn’s Converting Department (mixed-sex workforce ≈ 70% men/30% women) as a support technician beginning in 2010. He and co-worker Jim Leonard had multiple physical-contact incidents over several months (slaps, pinches, painful grabs, and a ‘‘hunching’’ incident that simulated sexual contact).
- After initial contacts, Smith followed company policy by warning Leonard directly and later reported the June 4, 2011 ‘‘hunching’’ incident to supervisors; management delayed action for about ten days and did not separate the two employees or promptly suspend Leonard pending investigation.
- Rock-Tenn had earlier disciplined Leonard (March 2011) for inappropriate touching of another male employee, but that write-up was not communicated to the ultimate decisionmaker; Leonard received only a brief suspension in June 2011 and returned to work.
- Smith took medical leave, sought counseling, was diagnosed with PTSD by a social worker, and never returned to Rock-Tenn; he sued under Title VII (hostile work environment) and state law claims.
- A jury found for Smith on his Title VII hostile-work-environment claim and awarded compensatory damages (reduced to statutory cap). Rock-Tenn appealed the denial of its Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 motions; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith proved same-sex sexual harassment "based on sex" under Oncale | Offered direct comparative evidence: Leonard touched multiple male coworkers and not women; workplace was mixed-sex | Leonard’s conduct was mere horseplay, not sex-based discrimination; Converting Dept. was effectively gender-segregated | Affirmed: Oncale routes satisfied by comparative evidence; jury reasonably found conduct discriminatory, not mere horseplay |
| Whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment | Physical invasions (pinches, grabs, simulated sex) plus knowledge of other incidents created objectively abusive environment | Incidents were isolated, sporadic horseplay insufficient as matter of law | Affirmed: question is fact-intensive; jury reasonably found environment objectively hostile given physical invasions and pattern over months |
| Whether Rock‑Tenn is liable for coworker harassment (employer response) | Employer knew or should have known and failed to take prompt, appropriate corrective action (did not separate, delay, incomplete investigation) | Company took prompt, reasonable steps under circumstances | Affirmed: reasonable jury could find employer’s delayed, limited response unreasonable in light of prior warning about Leonard |
| Whether trial errors (admission of evidence of other victims and Smith’s post-employment harms; counsel’s statements) require a new trial | Evidence was relevant to sex-basis and ongoing emotional damages; any improper remarks cured by instruction | Admission of unrelated prior-acts and post-employment testimony and counsel’s comments were prejudicial | Affirmed: prior-acts admissible for comparative and environment context; post-employment mental-health evidence admissible to show continuing harm; stray improper remarks did not prejudice after curative instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (same-sex harassment recognized; comparative evidence can show sex-based discrimination)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile work environment theory under Title VII)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (objective/subjective hostile-environment standard and factors to consider)
- Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center, 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006) (three ways to prove same-sex harassment under Oncale)
- Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2008) (physical invasion increases severity; other-targeted acts may be considered)
- E.E.O.C. v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc., 266 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2001) (employer liability standard for coworker harassment)
- Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., 726 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2013) (adequacy of employer response evaluated by reasonableness and promptness)