LaTanya Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.
999 F.3d 400
6th Cir.2021Background
- Wyatt, a Nissan IS project manager, alleges persistent sexual harassment by senior manager Walter Mullen (including a September 2015 hotel incident where he exposed himself and repeated unwanted touching).
- Wyatt reported the touching to manager David Butler around November 10, 2015; she told HR on December 3, 2015. Nissan interviewed Mullen on December 9, 2015; he resigned December 13.
- Wyatt took medical leave (back surgery) December 8, 2015 and returned May 2016; she requested workplace accommodations (including a 40‑hour workweek). Nissan denied the 40‑hour limitation.
- After her return, supervisor Billy Davis issued a first-time "below expectations" review (June 2016), drafted an MPIE in December 2015 (issued June 2016), and later issued a 90‑day PIP (January 2017); Wyatt has remained on medical leave since February 2017.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Nissan on all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claim and on retaliation claims insofar as they alleged retaliatory harassment, but reversed as to the Title VII hostile‑work‑environment claim and retaliation claims based on adverse employment actions, and remanded those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII hostile‑work‑environment (supervisor and coworker liability; employer affirmative defense) | Wyatt: Mullen’s exposure, repeated groping, and persistent sexual conduct created a hostile environment; Nissan delayed investigation and thus failed to exercise reasonable care. | Nissan: Mullen wasn’t a supervisor with tangible‑action power and Nissan promptly investigated once HR knew; plaintiff unreasonably delayed reporting. | Court: Hostile‑environment claim survives. Fact issues exist whether Mullen functioned as a supervisor and whether Nissan’s delayed investigation defeated Faragher‑Ellerth defense; co‑worker negligence theory also viable. |
| ADA failure‑to‑accommodate (40‑hour workweek) | Wyatt: a temporary 40‑hour schedule was a reasonable accommodation that would permit her to perform essential duties. | Nissan: Working >40 hours is essential for project managers (vendor time zones, heavy workload); limiting to 40 hours would eliminate an essential function and impose undue burden. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Nissan; working >40 hours is an essential function and the requested accommodation was unreasonable. |
| Title VII retaliation (adverse employment actions: removal from ABC project; negative reviews; PIP) | Wyatt: Protected activity (opposing harassment; reports to manager/HR/EEOC) was followed by removal from project and adverse evaluations; timing and inconsistent explanations show pretext and "cat’s paw" influence by Mullen. | Nissan: Adverse actions were based on legitimate, documented performance concerns; Davis lacked knowledge of protected activity or acted on independent, nonretaliatory evaluations. | Court: Retaliation claims based on the adverse employment actions survive summary judgment. Temporal proximity, inconsistencies, and evidence of subordinate influence raise genuine issues on causation and pretext. |
| Retaliation as harassment & ADA/FMLA retaliation based on harassment (severe/pervasive) | Wyatt: Post‑complaint conduct (repeated negative evaluations, workload pressure, comments) constituted retaliatory harassment. | Nissan: Performance reviews and workload adjustments are not severe or pervasive harassment; evidence is insufficient to show an objectively hostile retaliatory environment. | Court: Claims alleging retaliatory harassment fail; conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (defines "supervisor" and governs supervisor vs coworker liability)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer affirmative defense framework for supervisor harassment)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (paired with Faragher for affirmative defense elements)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile‑work‑environment claims)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (grounding hostile‑environment doctrine)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) ("cat’s paw" liability where biased subordinate drives adverse action)
- Clark v. United Parcel Serv., 400 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2005) (assessment of employer policy effectiveness and reasonable care)
- Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity can support causation in retaliation claims)
- E.E.O.C. v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (standards for qualification and reasonable accommodation under ADA)
- Thaddeus‑X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)