Michelle Moody v. Atlantic City Board of Educati
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17191
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Moody, a substitute custodian for the Atlantic City Board of Education, was assigned most of her work at New York Avenue School by custodial foreman Maurice Marshall beginning Oct. 2012. Substitute custodians were not guaranteed hours; foremen at each school selected subs for shifts.
- Moody alleges Marshall made sexual comments, engaged in unwanted touching and sexual acts, and conditioned work/contract opportunities on sexual favors; she claims she reluctantly had sex after he threatened her job.
- After she rebuffed him, Moody alleges Marshall reduced/delayed her hours and pay and treated her differently; she filed an internal complaint Feb. 4, 2013, and the Board investigated and later had an outside firm conclude no harassment.
- Moody sued the Board under Title VII and the NJLAD for hostile work environment and retaliation; the District Court granted summary judgment for the Board, finding Marshall was not her supervisor and no tangible employment action occurred.
- The Third Circuit (majority) reversed and remanded: it concluded disputed facts precluded summary judgment because Marshall exercised authority over Moody’s assignments (affecting her pay) and therefore could be a "supervisor"; also found disputed facts on whether a tangible employment action occurred, so the Ellerth/Faragher defense could not be resolved on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Marshall a "supervisor" for employer vicarious-liability purposes? | Marshall exercised supervisory authority by selecting Moody for shifts at New York Avenue School and controlled most of her hours, thus qualifying as a supervisor under Vance/Ellerth. | Marshall could not hire/fire/promote/demote Moody; assigning shifts to hourly substitutes does not make him a "supervisor" under Vance's bright-line test. | Reversed: Court concluded factual record supports that Marshall was Moody’s supervisor because he was empowered to determine whether she worked at that school and controlled a substantial share of her hours. |
| Did Moody suffer a "tangible employment action"? | Reduction/withholding of hours and delays in pay after rejecting advances constituted a tangible employment action affecting her benefits. | Pay records can be read differently; hours did not clearly decline immediately or significantly enough to show a tangible employment action. | Remanded: Court found the payroll evidence is subject to reasonable dispute; a jury must decide whether a tangible employment action occurred. |
| Is the Board entitled to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense? | Not applicable if a supervisor took a tangible employment action; otherwise the defense requires reasonable prevention/correction and plaintiff’s failure to use remedial avenues. | Board acted promptly after the complaint and raised failure-to-mitigate; it sufficiently pleaded the defense. | Remanded: Because existence of a tangible employment action is disputed, the availability of the defense cannot be resolved on summary judgment. |
| Did Moody establish a prima facie retaliation claim? | Filing internal complaint (protected activity) was followed closely by a marked reduction in hours, creating causation via temporal proximity. | Board asserted legitimate reasons may explain scheduling changes; District Court previously found no prima facie case. | Reversed: Court held Moody established a prima facie retaliation case (protected activity, materially adverse action—hours reduction—and causal inference); remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (recognizes sexual harassment as sex discrimination and sets hostile-work-environment principles)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (employer vicarious liability for supervisor harassment when supervisor takes tangible employment action; framework for affirmative defense)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (companion decision to Ellerth on employer liability and affirmative defense)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (defines “supervisor” as one empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (objective/subjective standard for hostile work environment severity)
- Cotton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 434 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) (reduction in hours/pay can qualify as a tangible employment action for hourly workers)