Rebecca Martin v. Covestro LLC and Randy Hively
16-1099
| W. Va. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Rebecca Martin, a chemical operator at Covestro (formerly Bayer), worked there since 2007 and filed suit after an August 1, 2014 overtime interaction with supervisor Randy Hively.
- On that date Hively gave Martin a ride after she moved her car because of bridge construction; while in his truck he placed a hand on her shoulder and made consoling remarks about her son. Martin cried and left work early, later missing over a month of work.
- Martin alleged rumors circulated that she would trade sexual favors to get her son’s job back; she appealed that these rumors and the shoulder touch created a hostile work environment.
- Martin sued for sexual harassment/hostile work environment (other claims were withdrawn or dismissed). The circuit court granted summary judgment for Covestro, concluding the conduct was an isolated, nonsexual touch, not shown to be sex-based or sufficiently severe/pervasive.
- Martin appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, reviewing summary judgment de novo and applying the Hanlon standard for hostile-work-environment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conduct was unwelcome and constituted a hostile work environment | Martin argued Hively’s touch plus resulting rumors and co-worker treatment created an abusive environment | Covestro argued the physical contact was an isolated, nonsexual incident and rumors lacked a demonstrated nexus to Hively or sex-based harassment | Held for defendant: single shoulder touch and unsubstantiated rumors did not establish a hostile work environment |
| Whether conduct was based on plaintiff’s sex | Martin argued men treated her differently and that touching males differently supported a sex-based inference | Covestro contended Martin offered no evidence Hively or others treated male employees similarly or that rumors targeted males | Held for defendant: plaintiff failed to show "but for" her sex she would not have been the object of harassment |
| Whether conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive | Martin claimed the rumors and workplace shunning were pervasive and altered employment conditions | Covestro argued no repeated sexual advances, solicitations, or sexually explicit conduct occurred and investigation steps were taken | Held for defendant: conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive as a matter of law |
| Whether employer is imputable liable on the record presented | Martin asserted employer failed adequately to address rumors and workplace impact | Covestro showed management met with Martin, union reps, and attempted to quash rumors; plaintiff offered no follow-up information for additional investigation | Held for defendant: plaintiff did not show a factual basis to impute actionable liability to the employer |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995) (sets elements for hostile-work-environment sexual-harassment claims under West Virginia law)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Conrad v. ARA Szabo, 198 W.Va. 362, 480 S.E.2d 801 (1996) ("but for" sex requirement for harassment inference)
- Johnson v. Killmer, 219 W.Va. 320, 633 S.E.2d 265 (2006) (observations on workplace incivility not rising to actionable discrimination)