984 F.3d 801
9th Cir.2020Background
- Jennifer Christian, a Umpqua Bank Universal Associate, received persistent unwanted attention from a bank customer beginning in late 2013: notes, a long affectionate letter, flowers, and repeated inquiries to branch employees asking how to get a date with her.
- Christian told the customer to stop, showed letters and cards to supervisors and colleagues, and was warned by coworkers that the conduct was "creepy" and potentially dangerous.
- Managers initially indicated the customer would be barred, but Umpqua did not promptly implement exclusion, and asked Christian to call the customer herself; the harassment continued over several months.
- The customer later stalked Christian at a charity event, stared at her in the bank lobby for extended periods, and returned to the branch; Christian reported the incidents to regional managers and HR, requested account closure and a no-trespass order, and was ultimately transferred and then resigned for health reasons.
- Christian sued under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination for gender-based hostile-work-environment harassment and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Umpqua, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the customer's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment | Christian: repeated notes, letters, flowers, stalking, coworkers' warnings and fear created an escalating, ambient hostile environment | Umpqua: incidents were isolated, spaced months apart, and lacked direct personal interactions or physical touching | Reversed: a jury could find the cumulative pattern severe/pervasive when viewed together; non‑physical and third‑party conduct counts |
| Whether incidents separated by months must be treated independently or aggregated | Christian: February and September incidents form a continuing pattern and must be considered together | Umpqua: the seven‑month gap renders most earlier incidents nonactionable | Reversed: incidents may be aggregated where they form an escalating pattern and continue to affect the workplace |
| Whether an employer is liable for harassment by a non‑employee (ratification/acquiescence) | Christian: Umpqua knew or should have known and failed to take prompt, effective corrective steps (did not bar customer, relied on plaintiff to contact him) | Umpqua: it responded promptly (offered transfers, later closed account and barred customer) | Reversed: a triable issue exists whether Umpqua’s response was untimely/ineffective and placed burden on victim, supporting potential employer liability |
| Whether the plaintiff’s voluntary call to the customer absolves the employer | Christian: she was pressured to call and victim contact cannot substitute for employer corrective action | Umpqua: plaintiff called the customer, so employer’s obligation was met | Reversed: disputed facts and law do not permit employer immunity simply because the victim made contact; effectiveness of remedy is controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991) (stalking/letter harassment and "reasonable woman" perspective)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment severity test)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (context and social impact of workplace behavior)
- Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1998) (evaluating conduct as a pattern/context)
- Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) (severity inversely varies with frequency and employer obligations)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (timeliness and continuing violation doctrine)
- Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1997) (employer liability for non‑employee harassers when acquiescence/ratification occurs)
- Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1995) (remedy must be reasonably calculated to end harassment)
- Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (promptness and effectiveness of corrective measures)