Stancombe v. New Process Steel LP, 652 F. App'x 729

Stancombe, a temporary male employee at New Process Steel (NPS) in Alabama, alleged two on-the-job sexual assaults by coworker Woodfin in February 2012: (1) a hug with three buttock touches; (2) two days later, while Stancombe knelt alone, Woodfin allegedly grabbed his head and made three pelvic thrusts in his face. Stancombe quit after the second incident.
Stancombe reported the first incident to supervisors; NPS investigated, moved Stancombe, warned Woodfin, suspended Woodfin three days for inappropriate contact, and planned a shift reassignment to separate them.
After the second incident Stancombe resigned via his staffing agency and the agency notified NPS; NPS investigated the second allegation but found no corroboration and Woodfin denied it.
The EEOC issued a determination finding cause and concluded Stancombe had been constructively discharged; Stancombe sued under Title VII and Alabama tort law.
The district court granted summary judgment for NPS and Woodfin on all federal claims and state claims except it declined supplemental jurisdiction over an assault-and-battery claim; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hostile work environment (Title VII)	Two sexual physical incidents were severe/pervasive enough to alter employment conditions	Incidents were isolated, not motivated by sex, and insufficiently severe/pervasive	Affirmed: incidents not shown to be sex-based or sufficiently severe/pervasive to create hostile environment
Employer liability for coworker harassment	NPS knew or should have known and failed to prevent recurrence	NPS promptly investigated, disciplined, separated employees, and had anti-harassment policy	Affirmed: NPS took immediate and appropriate corrective action; no basis for direct liability
Constructive discharge (Title VII)	Work conditions were intolerable, compelling resignation	Stancombe resigned without reporting the second incident to management and NPS had remedial procedures in place	Affirmed: higher constructive-discharge standard not met; failed to use available remedies and employer had time/means to remedy
State torts— invasion of privacy, outrage, negligent/wanton supervision, vicarious liability	Unwanted physical contact and prior incidents show intrusion/outrage and employer negligence/ratification	Physical contact alone did not intrude on private affairs or meet outrage standard; NPS investigated and disciplined; no ratification	Affirmed: invasion/outrage not established; supervision claims fail because employer acted reasonably; no vicarious liability

Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (Title VII hostile-environment standard: severe or pervasive conduct)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (same-sex harassment cognizable under Title VII)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer affirmative defenses; standards for supervisory/co-worker harassment)
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (Eleventh Circuit elements for hostile-work-environment claims)
Mendoza v. Borden, 195 F.3d 1238 (severe-or-pervasive analysis; isolated incidents generally insufficient)
Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv., 234 F.3d 501 (example of severe, repeated physical harassment)
Kilgore v. Thompson & Brock Mgmt., 93 F.3d 752 (appropriate remedial steps and employer liability)
Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 480 F.3d 1287 (reasonableness of employer investigations)
Potts v. BE & K Constr. Co., 604 So.2d 398 (Alabama law on employer ratification and steps required to remedy harassment)