668 F.3d 182
5th Cir.2012Background
- Cherry was Shaw Coastal employee on a survey crew with Reasoner (co-worker) and Thornton (supervisor).
- Reasoner repeatedly touched Cherry and made explicit sexual comments/texts; Thornton witnessed some conduct.
- Company policy required reporting of harassment; initial complaints were not promptly acted upon by supervisors or HR.
- Cherry complained to multiple supervisors; D’Angelo and Pena were told but did not escalate; HR investigation yielded insufficient evidence.
- Reasoner was eventually fired after Cherry resigned; jury found sexual harassment and battery, but district court granted JML on most claims; remand directed to enter judgment consistent with verdict on harssment-related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in granting JML on retaliation | Cherry's complaints show protected activity and adverse action | Overt acts were not adverse employment actions | No reversal on retaliation; JML affirmed for retaliation claim denied in district court (later remand on harassment claims) |
| Whether the district court erred in granting JML on punitive damages | Punitive damages warranted by reckless indifference | Policy and action did not demonstrate malice | Affirmed district court’s JML on punitive damages (not malice or reckless indifference) |
| Whether the sexual harassment finding was supported by the evidence | Harassment was explicit/implicit sexual conduct by Reasoner | Evidence insufficient to show severe or pervasive harassment or same-sex harassment support | Harassment evidence sufficient to support verdict; district court erred in granting JML on harassment claim |
| Whether Shaw Coastal was liable for harassment due to failure to act promptly | Company knew or should have known and failed to remediate promptly | Remedial action eventually taken; no prompt response implied | Evidence shows lack of prompt remedial action; district court erred; remand for judgment on verdict consistent with findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same-sex harassment may be actionable with credible evidence of harassment or sexual intent)
- La Day v. Catalyst Technology, 302 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2002) (types of credible evidence of homosexuality in same-sex harassment cases)
- Harvill v. Westward Communications, 433 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2005) (severe or pervasive harassment standard in Title VII)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile work environment framework)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1999) (malice or reckless indifference standard for punitive damages)
- Sharp v. City of Houston, 164 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1999) (employer liability when knowledge of harassment exists; prompt remedial action)
- James v. Harris County, 577 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 50 de novo review standard; evidence review)