Kelly Matherne v. Ruba Management
624 F. App'x 835
5th Cir.2015Background
- Matherne and Tart worked ~3–5 weeks at an IHOP franchise run by Ruba Management and resigned in early April 2012; each alleged sexual harassment and later filed Title VII and state-law claims.
- Both knew (or were given) Ruba’s employee handbook and sexual-harassment reporting procedures; both reported some incidents to management (not all).
- Alleged harassers were primarily cooks (coworkers); Matherne also alleged sexual comments by a weekend manager (McCormick).
- Store managers (Owen and Garrison) investigated reported incidents, reviewed surveillance footage, interviewed employees, issued a formal warning, changed schedules/transferred employees to separate complainants, and conducted staff anti-harassment training.
- A magistrate judge granted summary judgment for Ruba on all claims; appellants appealed only the Title VII hostile-work-environment and constructive-discharge rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions | Appellants: repeated physical and verbal sexual harassment by coworkers (and comments by a manager) created a hostile environment | Ruba: incidents were isolated/offhand; not severe or pervasive | Court: need not decide severity because plaintiffs failed element 5; no genuine dispute on employer response |
| Whether employer knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action | Appellants: Ruba failed to adequately stop harassment after notice | Ruba: management investigated promptly, reviewed video, interviewed staff, warned/transferred employees and provided training | Held: Ruba took prompt, adequate remedial action; summary judgment for employer |
| Whether alleged weekend manager (McCormick) was a "supervisor" under Vance relieving plaintiff of the duty to show employer response | Matherne: McCormick was her weekend manager and thus a supervisor | Ruba: no evidence McCormick could take tangible employment actions (hire/fire/demote/etc.) | Held: McCormick was not a Vance supervisor; plaintiff still must satisfy employer-knowledge/response element |
| Whether resignations amounted to constructive discharge | Appellants: harassment compelled resignation | Ruba: no heightened harassment or adverse employment actions; company offered remedies which plaintiffs declined | Held: constructive-discharge claim fails; record lacks Brown factors indicating compelled resignation |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment standard — court determines whether environment is hostile or abusive)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (sexual harassment actionable where it alters conditions of employment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer defense when no tangible employment action; reasonableness of employer preventative/corrective measures)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (definition of "supervisor" for Title VII — must be able to take tangible employment actions)
- Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, 736 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2013) (fifth-circuit hostile-work-environment framework)
- Brown v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2001) (factors relevant to constructive discharge claim)