Kymberli Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C., 915 F.3d 320

Kymberli Gardner, a certified nursing assistant at Plaza Community Living Center (CLC), experienced repeated sexual comments, groping, and physical assaults by resident J.S. over years; incidents were documented and reported.
J.S. had serious cognitive and behavioral impairments (dementia, traumatic brain injury, personality disorder) and a documented history of sexually inappropriate and violent conduct toward staff and other residents.
Supervisors and administrators knew of complaints and observed J.S.’s conduct; they moved him at times but declined some requested evaluations and allegedly dismissed Gardner’s concerns (e.g., remarks to “put [her] big girl panties on”).
After a violent episode in which J.S. grabbed and punched Gardner multiple times, Gardner sought reassignment, was denied, took three months of leave for injuries, then was terminated for insubordination, violating resident rights, and allegedly striking the resident.
Gardner sued under Title VII for hostile work environment (sexual harassment by a nonemployee) and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for CLC on both claims; Gardner appealed the hostile-environment and retaliation rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hostile-work-environment based on resident’s conduct	Gardner: J.S.’s repeated daily groping, sexual comments, and physical assaults were severe/pervasive and interfered with employment	CLC: Harassment was the sort of conduct caregivers should expect from dementia patients; not severe/pervasive as a matter of law	Reversed summary judgment — a jury could find the harassment severe or pervasive given frequency, physical assaults, and impact (three months off work); diminished capacity of harasser is relevant but not dispositive
Retaliation for complaints/refusal to care for J.S.	Gardner: She engaged in protected activity and was terminated as retaliation; may have direct evidence	CLC: District court applied McDonnell-Douglas; argued no genuine causal link under that framework	Affirmed in part: district court’s use of McDonnell-Douglas was correct; remanded to allow district court to consider Gardner’s direct-evidence claim in the first instance

Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (supervisor vs. non-supervisor liability framework for harassment)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer affirmative defense and standards for supervisor harassment)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Title VII covers hostile or abusive work environments)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (severe-or-pervasive standard and objective/subjective test)
Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062 (third-party/customer harassment can give rise to employer liability)
Cain v. Blackwell, 246 F.3d 758 (patient verbal propositions not severe/pervasive in home-health setting)
Crist v. Focus Homes, Inc., 122 F.3d 1107 (physical sexual assault by a patient can create triable hostile-environment claim)
Turnbull v. Topeka State Hosp., 255 F.3d 1238 (extreme physical sexual assaults by patient supported actionable claim)
Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396 (employer liability for non-supervisor harassment requires employer knowledge and failure to take corrective action)