339 F. Supp. 3d 1106
E.D. Wash.2018Background
- Horning Brothers, an agricultural employer in Quincy, WA, operated a seasonal onion-packing shed staffed largely by Spanish-speaking seasonal workers; Allen, Greg, and Warren Horning run the business and do not speak Spanish.
- Hermilo (Milo) Cruz served as the onion shed foreman/supervisor from ~2006 to March 2017; plaintiffs allege he sexually harassed multiple female onion-sorters (unwanted touching, comments, propositions) over several years.
- Complaints: one worker (Roxana Rodriguez de Alfaro) filed an HRC complaint in August 2015; another worker (Yesica Cabrera Navarro) alleges she complained to Warren Horning in December 2014; the State served an investigative demand in August 2016 and notified Horning Brothers of suit authorization in Feb 2017.
- Horning Brothers’ only written/posted harassment notice was a brief safety-meeting item (read in English and informally translated to Spanish, not word-for-word) that did not define sexual harassment or expressly prohibit retaliation; a formal Spanish handbook was issued only after packing operations ceased (June 2017).
- Internal March 2017 interviews identified multiple workers reporting sexual comments/touching by Cruz; Horning Brothers did not discipline Cruz or undertake training/remedial steps beyond speaking with him.
- Procedural posture: State sued under Title VII and WLAD; several employees intervened. Court considered cross motions for summary judgment on liability issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz is a "supervisor" for Title VII vicarious liability | Cruz had authority to hire/rehire, assign positions, set hours, approve leave and was labeled supervisor in company filings; thus his actions impute to employer | Hornings deny granting tangible employment action authority (esp. firing) and argue lack of formal supervisory power | Court: Cruz is a supervisor (employer admissions and evidence); Horning Brothers vicariously liable under Title VII |
| Applicability of Ellerth–Faragher affirmative defense (employer avoidance of vicarious liability) | N/A (Plaintiffs argue policy ineffective and employer failed to promptly correct) | Employer contends small-employer informal policy suffices and plaintiffs failed to report, so defense applies | Court: defense fails — policy ineffective (no sexual-harassment definition, no anti-retaliation assurance, poor Spanish dissemination) and employer failed to promptly correct |
| WLAD manager/strict liability question | Cruz meets Washington’s manager test (authority over hours, wages, working conditions) so employer strictly liable | Hornings argue federal supervisory test differs / deny manager status | Court: Cruz is a manager under Robel; Horning Brothers strictly liable under WLAD; Ellerth–Faragher not a bar even if considered |
| Hostile-work-environment (Title VII/WLAD) — sufficiency of harassment evidence | Multiple plaintiffs recount frequent unwelcome sexual comments/touching creating objectively and subjectively hostile environment | Defendants dispute incidents, point to socializing and denials; argue conduct not extreme enough | Court: genuine factual disputes resolved for plaintiffs at summary judgment stage—evidence sufficient to proceed to trial |
| Retaliation / Constructive discharge / Discriminatory hiring / Punitive damages | Plaintiffs: complaints to management (e.g., Yesica) followed by adverse acts (reassignment, humiliation), constructive resignation by some victims, segregated hiring practice (women in seasonal low-pay roles), and employer acted with reckless indifference | Defendants: deny notice/complaints, deny adverse actions, contend no discriminatory hiring practice, and argue lack of knowledge for punitive damages | Court: Denied summary judgment for defendants on retaliation and constructive discharge (genuine issues of fact); denied summary judgment re discriminatory hiring (disparate impact dispute exists); punitive damages under Title VII survive summary judgment (triable issue whether employer acted with malice/reckless indifference); punitive damages barred under WLAD |
Key Cases Cited
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (supervisor status for vicarious liability requires power to take tangible employment actions)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (employer affirmative defense: prevention/correction and employee unreasonably failed to use procedure)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (same employer-defense framework; suitability of policies given workplace size)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (title vii hostile-work-environment principles)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard—genuine issue of material fact)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526 (punitive damages standard under Title VII—malice or reckless indifference)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (disparate impact prima facie and business-necessity defense)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge doctrine)
- Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wash.2d 35 (Washington test for manager affecting hours, wages, working conditions; WLAD liability)