Kimberly Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655

Background

Passananti was deputy director of the Day Reporting Center (DRC) in Cook County; Sullivan, the DRC director, repeatedly demeaned her and called her a derogatory gendered term; she faced fabricated accusations, a transfer, and a five-day suspension amid ongoing harassment from 2003–2006.
Sullivan left the DRC in 2006; Passananti remained until her position was eliminated in March 2007 due to county budget cuts.
Passananti alleged Title VII sex discrimination and sexual harassment and a §1983 equal-protection claim; the district court granted judgment as a matter of law against her after a jury verdict.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit must credit Passananti’s conflicts in the evidence and infer favorable inferences, reviewing de novo the Rule 50(a)/(b) issues.
The panel reinstates liability for sexual harassment, reverses liability on termination, and remands to enter a $70,000 compensatory judgment against the Sheriff’s Department; punitive damages against Sullivan are limitable under Title VII as the county cannot be liable for punitive damages.
The district court’s handling of the Faragher-Ellerth defense and the evidence of the department’s harassment policy’s effectiveness are central to the decision to reinstate the harassment verdict and deny the defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment based on sex	Passananti argues Sullivan’s repeated use of “bitch” and related conduct created a sex-based, severe, and pervasive environment.	Defendants contend the conduct was vulgar but not sufficiently tied to gender or pervasive to alter conditions of employment.	Yes; the harassment was sex-based and sufficiently severe/pervasive to sustain liability.
Whether the termination claim was supported by evidence of gender discrimination	Passananti contends the budget-driven layoff targeted her position due to gender.	Herrera’s budget decision was not motivated by Passananti’s gender and Sullivan was no longer in the DRC.	No; no reasonable jury could find gender-based termination."
Whether the Faragher-Ellerth defense was properly applied	The district court erred in applying the defense given failure to show effective notice and tangible action linkage.	The defense shielded the employer if it showed reasonable care and plaintiff failed to use available remedies.	Waived/incorrectly applied; but the jury correctly found the defense not satisfied given substantial evidence of notice and policy failure.
Whether the supervisor’s harassment can be imputed to the Sheriff’s Department under Title VII	Employer should be liable for Sullivan’s harassment given supervisory status and notice to internal channels.	The policy was not effectively followed; the district court should have applied the defense; still, employer liability is favored for harassment.	Sheriff’s Department liable for Sullivan’s harassment; Sullivan not liable in Title VII individually; punitive damages barred against the county.
Damages allocation and remedy allocation between harassment and termination claims	Damages should reflect two distinct injuries: harassment and termination.	Jury damages should be kept, with proper allocation.	Compensatory damages of $70,000 against the Sheriff’s Department for harassment; Sullivan’s punitive damages reversed; termination damages affirmed as against the district court.

Key Cases Cited

Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, Inc., 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (sex-based harassment can be severe and pervasive depending on context)
Galloway v. General Motors Serv. Parts Operations, 78 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir. 1996) (context determines if gendered language supports sex harassment)
Gentry v. Export Packaging Co., 238 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2001) (policy effectiveness and employer liability in harassment cases)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (credibility not weighed by court in Rule 50 review; evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc; gender-based epithets can support harassment claims depending on context)
Tuli v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., 656 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2011) (repeated gendered remarks can support hostile environment)
Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions, (USA) Inc., 650 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 2011) (gender-based comments against plaintiff support hostile environment)
Phelan v. Cook County, 463 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) (notice of harassment does not require perfect adherence to internal policy)
Hrobowski v. Worthington Steel Co., 358 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2004) (race-based harassment can be actionable; context matters for gender as well)