Johnson v. Shinseki, 811 F. Supp. 2d 336

Johnson began at VA Medical Center in 1987, later becoming SARP resource manager with duties including office provisioning and patient interaction.
Office culture in SARP featured sexual banter, jokes, and occasional sexual gestures among coworkers, though supervisors would curb it in their presence.
Johnson alleges longstanding sexual harassment by coworker Pearson beginning in the 1990s, escalating to physical contact around 2005; timing disputed.
Johnson reported Pearson’s conduct to supervisors in 2005 and to the VA EEO office in August 2005; Pearson was placed on paid leave and investigated.
Johnson left her VA position in August 2005, did not return until 2008 part-time due to fear and medical treatment; doctors advised a different work location.
Secretary moved for summary judgment arguing lack of supervisor liability and no timely knowledge/adequate corrective action; court denied summary judgment, finding factual disputes remain.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson’s post-discovery declaration is admissible	Declaration clarifies testimony, not clearly contradictory.	Declaration constitutes a sham affidavit contradicting earlier statements.	Sham-affidavit rule not triggered; declaration allowed to supplement ambiguities
Whether Pearson was a supervisor or a coworker for liability purposes	Pearson acted within Johnson's chain of command as a supervisor.	Pearson was a coworker, not a supervisor in Johnson's chain of command.	Pearson is a coworker; Faragher-style supervisor liability not applicable
Whether VA knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to act	Knowledge existed or should have existed given Johnson’s reports and ongoing conduct.	Pre-2005 harassment was not known; policy and reporting channels were in place; late 2005 actions were reasonable.	There is a genuine issue of material fact as to timing of notice and knowledge
Whether VA’s response to the harassment was prompt and appropriate	August 2005 actions were inadequate given ongoing complaints and severity.	Actions such as investigation, training, and transfer discussions were appropriate.	Summary judgment denied due to disputed facts on timeliness and reasonableness

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (hostile environment standard requires discriminatory purpose or impact)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (supervisor liability framework for harassment)
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (recognizes sexual harassment as sex discrimination)
Curry v. District of Columbia, 195 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (distinguishes supervisor vs. coworker standards and employer duty)
Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer liability when harassment by supervisor, with affirmative defense)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (set of factors for hostile environment analysis)
Jones v. Billington, 346 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2004) (basis for analysis of supervisor vs. coworker different standards)
Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Ill., Inc., 163 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1998) (definition of supervisory authority relevant to harassment liability)