Sheri Minarsky v. Susquehanna County
895 F.3d 303
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Minarsky was a part-time secretary who alleges that her supervisor, Thomas Yadlosky, repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances (kissing, hugging, touching, explicit emails) over ~3.5 years while they worked alone one day per week.
- Other employees observed similar conduct; two supervisors (Chief Clerk Beamer and Commissioner Warren) had previously warned or observed Yadlosky for inappropriate behavior, but no formal personnel action or file notation occurred until Minarsky’s allegations surfaced.
- Minarsky signed the County’s written anti-harassment policy on hire but did not report the harassment for years, citing fear of retaliation, job loss, Yadlosky’s admonitions not to trust supervisors, and perceived futility given prior ineffective reprimands.
- After consulting her doctor, Minarsky emailed Yadlosky in July 2013 demanding that he stop; the matter was reported to Beamer and the Commissioners, Yadlosky admitted the conduct, was placed on leave, and then terminated; Minarsky later resigned.
- Procedurally: District Court granted summary judgment for Susquehanna County, finding the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense satisfied as a matter of law; Minarsky appealed. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that both elements of Faragher-Ellerth present factual disputes for a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer satisfied Faragher-Ellerth element 1 (reasonable care to prevent/correct harassment) | County’s written policy and eventual termination were insufficient given pattern of prior incidents and lack of effective follow-up; the County turned a blind eye to a pattern | County maintained an anti-harassment policy, reprimanded Yadlosky twice, and promptly terminated him once informed—thus exercised reasonable care as a matter of law | Vacated summary judgment: whether County exercised reasonable care is a jury question (material factual disputes exist) |
| Whether plaintiff unreasonably failed to use employer’s preventive/corrective measures (Faragher-Ellerth element 2) | Minarsky’s fear of retaliation, Yadlosky’s warnings not to trust supervisors, his prior continued conduct after reprimands, financial dependence, and working alone made non-reporting objectively reasonable | Long delay and failure to report despite policy make her non-reporting unreasonable as a matter of law | Vacated summary judgment: reasonableness of Minarsky’s non-reporting is a jury question (issue-specific facts create triable dispute) |
| Whether District Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state assault claim | If Title VII claim survives, federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state claim | District Court previously declined supplemental jurisdiction after granting summary judgment on federal claim | Vacated dismissal of state-law assault claim; remand allows District Court to decide supplemental jurisdiction in light of the federal claim’s reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (establishes employer affirmative defense when no tangible employment action)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (companion decision defining employer liability and two-element defense)
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (tangible employment action doctrine and effect on employer liability)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (supervisor status and its relevance to harassment liability)
- Jones v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 796 F.3d 323 (3d Cir. 2015) (application of Faragher-Ellerth and discussion of delay in reporting)
- Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chi. Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2013) (standards for supplemental jurisdiction on remand)