931 F.3d 624
7th Cir.2019Background
- Hunt, an overnight electronics employee at Wal‑Mart, alleges supervisor Daniel Watson made repeated sexually suggestive comments over ~4–5 months (May–Sept 2013).
- Watson had prior complaints from another employee (Campbell) earlier in 2012; Wal‑Mart issued written coachings and moved him to nights.
- After Watson disciplined Hunt (Sept. 27, 2013) for attendance, Hunt immediately reported his harassment to store manager Mark Turner; Turner promptly opened an investigation and interviewed the parties.
- Turner could not substantiate Hunt’s claims (no corroborating witnesses), but required Watson to retake ethics/anti‑harassment training; Hunt reported no further incidents thereafter.
- Hunt filed suit alleging a hostile work environment under Title VII; district court granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment based on the Faragher‑Ellerth affirmative defense and unreasonable reporting delay. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conduct amounted to constructive discharge (adverse employment action) | Hunt: working conditions were intolerable; she effectively stopped returning to work due to harassment | Wal‑Mart: Hunt continued working for years and left only years later; no intolerable conditions shown | Court: No constructive discharge — harassment not extreme enough; Hunt did not quit because of intolerable conditions |
| Whether Wal‑Mart exercised reasonable care to prevent/correct harassment (Faragher‑Ellerth first element) | Hunt: prior complaints about Watson (Campbell) put Wal‑Mart on notice and required closer supervision; policies insufficiently enforced | Wal‑Mart: had comprehensive anti‑harassment policy, reporting options (including anonymous hotline), prompt investigation, and retraining | Court: Wal‑Mart satisfied reasonable‑care element — policy, reporting system, prompt investigation, and retraining were adequate |
| Whether Hunt unreasonably delayed reporting (Faragher‑Ellerth second element) | Hunt: unaware of anonymous hotline, feared retaliation, thought must report to Turner | Wal‑Mart: policy made reporting options clear; delay prevented corrective action; subjective fear not excusal | Court: Delay of several months was unreasonable; Hunt could have reported without undue risk |
| Overall entitlement to Faragher‑Ellerth defense at summary judgment | Hunt: disputed facts create triable issues on hostile environment and employer liability | Wal‑Mart: no adverse action + satisfied both elements of Faragher‑Ellerth | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Wal‑Mart under Faragher‑Ellerth defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (employer may raise affirmative defense to vicarious liability for supervisor harassment when no adverse employment action)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (same; sets two‑part defense: reasonable care + employee's unreasonable failure to use prevention/correction)
- Porter v. Erie Foods Intern., Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (prompt investigation is hallmark of reasonable corrective action)
- Cerros v. Steel Techs., 398 F.3d 944 (employee’s duty to alert employer assessed functionally; failure to use procedures usually suffices for second element)
- Roby v. CWI, Inc., 579 F.3d 779 (constructive discharge standard; delay in reporting can be unreasonable)