Kramer v. Wasatch County, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1190

Kramer alleged sex discrimination against Wasatch County and Sheriff Van Wagoner under Title VII and § 1983 based on sexual harassment by Sergeant Benson.
Benson acted as bailiff supervisor with scheduling and evaluative inputs but no direct authority over pay or benefits; ultimate employment decisions rested with the Sheriff.
Court previously denied summary judgment in 2011 but now holds no genuine dispute on material facts supporting direct liability or vicarious liability independent of an Ellerth/Faragher defense.
Kramer asserts a hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment, alleged retaliation, and negligent failure to prevent harassment by Wasatch County and Sheriff Van Wagoner.
Kramer reported harassment only after a 2007 car accident; investigations followed, Benson resigned, and Kramer’s POST certification was suspended for a year.
Kramer’s constructive discharge claim is rejected as no termination occurred and the alleged harassment did not cause a tangible employment action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Benson was a supervisor for Title VII liability	Kramer argues Benson had control over employment terms.	County says Benson had no authority over material conditions; Sheriff is ultimate decision-maker.	Benson not supervisor; no direct Title VII liability; no tangible action by Benson.
Whether Ellerth/Faragher defense bars vicarious liability	Wasatch County failed to prevent or promptly correct harassment.	County reasonably prevented/corrected harassment; plaintiff unreasonably failed to use remedies.	Ellerth/Faragher defense applies; County entitled to summary judgment on vicarious liability.
Whether Sheriff Van Wagoner is liable under § 1983 and entitled to qualified immunity	Sheriff failed to train/supervise; knew of Benson’s history; tolerated harassment.	No knowledge of Benson’s harassment; acted promptly when informed; qualified immunity applies.	Van Wagoner entitled to qualified immunity; no evidence of deliberate indifference.
Whether Wasatch County has a Monell-style custom/policy creating liability	County tolerated or failed to prevent harassment; allegedly had a policy or custom.	Policy against harassment existed; actions show remedial responses; no underlying custom.	No custom or policy causing § 1983 violation; county not liable under Monell.

Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (establishes direct and vicarious liability framework and tangible action concept)
Faragher, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (hostile environment defense and employee remedy framework)
Pinkerton v. Colorado Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirmative defense considerations in harassment cases)
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local government liability for policies/customs; not respondeat superior)
Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) ( Monell-like custom policy framework guidance)
Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 158 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1998) (direct liability concepts for supervisor knowledge of harassment)
Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2011) (Ellerth/Faragher defense and reasonable care analysis)
Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corrections, 455 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (supervisor liability and deliberate indifference framework under § 1983)