2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149835
D. Minn.2016Background
- Radmer and Jordan were former romantic partners who worked together at Omaha Steaks’ St. Louis Park store; Jordan became store manager and hired Radmer in Sept. 2014.
- Radmer alleges repeated unwelcome sexual conduct by Jordan at work (oral sex, intercourse, coercion) and supervisory threats; he did not report the conduct to Omaha Steaks before resigning.
- Omaha Steaks had an anti-harassment policy posted and distributed to employees, with contact information for 20 HR representatives and an Open Door Policy; Radmer acknowledged receiving and reviewing the policy.
- After a January 24, 2015 altercation at Radmer’s parents’ home (police responded; Radmer was arrested), Radmer resigned in February 2015, stating he would return to school.
- Radmer filed an MHRA claim alleging hostile work environment/sexual harassment and that Omaha Steaks is vicariously liable for an off-duty assault; the company moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Radmer suffered a "tangible employment action" (constructive discharge) | Radmer says harassment made working conditions intolerable and forced him to quit | Omaha Steaks says Radmer resigned voluntarily for school and never gave employer chance to remedy because he never reported harassment | No tangible action; no constructive discharge because employer lacked notice and no opportunity to remedy |
| Whether Ellerth–Faragher affirmative defense shields employer from vicarious liability for supervisor harassment | N/A (defense addresses employer liability) | Employer contends it exercised reasonable care (anti-harassment policy/distribution) and employee unreasonably failed to use reporting procedures | Defense applies: employer showed reasonable preventive measures and plaintiff unreasonably failed to report; employer entitled to judgment |
| Whether Omaha Steaks failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent/correct harassment (prevention prong) | Radmer argues improper hiring/promotion of Jordan and alleged procedural failures made harassment foreseeable | Omaha Steaks emphasizes written policy, training, posted notices, and lack of notice of complaints before resignation | Court finds policy distribution and reporting mechanisms sufficient to satisfy prevention prong; hiring critique too attenuated to defeat defense |
| Whether Omaha Steaks is liable under respondeat superior for the off-duty January 24 incident | Radmer argues the incident was a continuation of workplace harassment and thus employer liable | Omaha Steaks says the altercation occurred off-hours at Radmer's parents’ home for personal reasons unrelated to employment | Employer not liable: assault occurred outside employment scope, no work-related nexus to vicarious liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Davenport v. Univ. of Ark. Ed. of Trs., 553 F.3d 1110 (nonmoving party must produce probative evidence)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer affirmative defense to supervisor harassment)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (employer affirmative defense to supervisor harassment)
- Gordon v. Shafer Contracting Co., 469 F.3d 1191 (policy distribution can support Ellerth–Faragher defense)
- Weger v. City of Ladue, 500 F.3d 710 (employer notice central to correction inquiry)
- Crawford v. BNSF R.R. Co., 665 F.3d 978 (articulation of Ellerth–Faragher elements)
- Adams v. O’Reilly Auto., 538 F.3d 926 (fear of retaliation generally not excuse for failing to report)
- Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (constructive discharge requires employer had opportunity to remedy)
- Matvia v. Bald Head Island Mgmt., 259 F.3d 261 (victim’s failure to report is not excused by desire for corroboration)
- Reed v. MBNA Mktg. Sys., 333 F.3d 27 (futility of complaint mechanism must be demonstrable)
- C.B. ex rel. L.B. v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am., 726 N.W.2d 127 (respondeat superior scope of employment principles)
- Lange v. Nat’l Biscuit Co., 211 N.W.2d 783 (employer liability for assault tied to work-related source and time/place)