Robert Adams v. Austal, USA, LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11316
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Austal USA operated a large shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, where extensive racial misconduct was alleged over several years: frequent vulgar racial graffiti in men’s restrooms, multiple nooses discovered on site, Confederate-flag paraphernalia, and racial epithets by supervisors and coworkers.
- 24 African-American current and former employees sued for a racially hostile work environment; the district court granted summary judgment for Austal on 13 plaintiffs’ hostile-work-environment claims and proceeded to jury trials on others.
- The district court evaluated each plaintiff’s claim individually and limited consideration of “me too” evidence: a plaintiff could rely only on incidents he or she was aware of during employment to prove the objective component.
- Two plaintiffs (Carter and Hedgeman) tried to admit broader “me too” evidence; the district court initially restricted but later allowed some evidence and instructed the jury that each plaintiff must have been aware of relied-upon incidents.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit addressed (1) whether a plaintiff may use evidence of harassment unknown to them to prove that their environment was objectively hostile, (2) whether summary judgment was proper for each of the 13 plaintiffs, and (3) evidentiary and jury-instruction rulings in Carter/Hedgeman’s trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a plaintiff rely on “me too” incidents of which they were unaware to prove the objective component of a hostile-work-environment claim? | Plaintiffs argued courts should consider the totality of workplace misconduct (including incidents unknown to a particular plaintiff) to evaluate objective hostility. | Austal argued objective assessment must be from perspective of a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position, i.e., limited to incidents the plaintiff knew about. | Plaintiffs cannot rely on harassment of which they were unaware to prove the objective hostility element; court evaluates what a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position (knowing what plaintiff knew) would find. |
| Did the district court apply correct reasonable-person standard (racial perspective argument)? | Plaintiffs claimed the court effectively evaluated objective hostility from a white person’s perspective. | Austal said the court properly assessed each plaintiff individually based on their circumstances. | Court applied the correct standard: objective test is from perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position. |
| Did the record raise genuine disputes of material fact for each of the 13 summary-judgment plaintiffs? | Plaintiffs argued disputed factual issues existed and summary judgment was improper for all 13. | Austal argued many plaintiffs lacked evidence of sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment known to them. | Vacated summary judgments and remanded for 7 plaintiffs (Hollis, Reed, Pettibone, Law, Bumpers, Williams, Laffiette); affirmed summary judgment for the other 6 (Adams, Cunningham, Pratt, Slay, Sullivan, Thomas). |
| Were the district court’s evidentiary rulings and jury instructions in Carter/Hedgeman trial proper (including exclusion of some “me too” evidence and allowance of Faragher defense)? | Carter/Hedgeman argued exclusion of broader “me too” evidence, allowance of Faragher defense and undisclosed witnesses was erroneous. | Austal argued exclusion was within district court discretion; Faragher defense/time and witness issues were addressed and not prejudicial. | Court held district court did not abuse discretion: exclusion of irrelevant/unduly prejudicial “me too” evidence proper; Faragher defense was raised sufficiently; plaintiffs waived challenges on undisclosed witnesses and other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (admission of some “me too” evidence relevant to employer responsibility and rebuttal)
- Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (totality-of-circumstances test; objective component judged from perspective of a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment legal standard)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (employer defense when it exercised reasonable care and employee unreasonably failed to use corrective opportunities)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 532 U.S. 75 (1998) (objective severity judged from reasonable person in plaintiff’s position)
- Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2012) (example of reversing summary judgment where harassment supported objective hostility)
- Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (elements for race-based hostile-work-environment claim)