Johnson v. Xerox Corp.
838 F. Supp. 2d 99
W.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiff Donna Johnson sues Xerox for Title VII and NYSHRL discrimination; Xerox moves for summary judgment.
- Xerox's policies prohibit harassment (HR 201.3 and Code of Business Conduct) and require training on non-harassment policies.
- Johnson, a UNITEHERE! member, was governed by a CBA with a harassment-discrimination grievance procedure.
- January 11, 2007 incident: Johnson and coworker Dibble cleaned a men’s restroom; a man urinates at a urinal, saying, “in Europe, cleaners just clean around me.”
- Johnson reported the incident; she was moved to another building; she filed an EEOC charge based on this single incident.
- Court grants Xerox summary judgment on Johnson’s hostile environment claim, finding the single incident non-actionable and not imputable to Xerox; other reported incidents were too distant in time/geography to be relevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single non-supervisor incident constitutes a hostile environment | Johnson argues the incident was humiliating and created a hostile environment. | Xerox contends one isolated incident cannot support a hostile environment claim. | Granted; single non-supervisor incident insufficient. |
| Whether the employer can be held vicariously liable for a non-supervisor harassment | Johnson asserts Xerox is liable for harassment by a coworker. | Xerox argues no supervisor harasser and/or no failure to act evidence; thus no vicarious liability. | Granted; no imputable supervisor conduct and adequate remedial avenues shown. |
| Whether evidence of other women’s incidents is admissible and probative | Evidence supports pervasive harassment pattern at Xerox. | Incidents are too distant in time/geography to be relevant. | Struck balance; not considered for the hostile environment claim due to remoteness, but noted admissibility would be limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (affirmative defense for employer in supervisor harassment cases)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability limited by affirmative defense)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (totality of circumstances test for hostility)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (co-worker harassment with employer liability depends on complaint avenues)
- Murray v. New York University College of Dentistry, 57 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1995) (employer liability for harassment by coworker requires no effective complaint avenue or knowledge)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination; workplace civility limits)
- Perry v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 1997) (evidence of harassment of others relevant to pattern under certain conditions)