TyAnne Davenport v. Edward D. Jones & Company, LP
891 F.3d 162
5th Cir.2018Background
- Davenport was hired as a branch office administrator by Edward Jones supervisor Brendan Coyne in Oct. 2014; Coyne engaged in abusive and later sexualized conduct toward her.
- Coyne allegedly told Davenport multiple times in 2015 that she should “date” a wealthy prospective client (Fisher) and that she would receive “big bonuses” if she did; Davenport refused.
- Coyne also made an in-office “nudie pictures” joke about Davenport in front of a client; Davenport reported it, took leave, and later resigned in Jan. 2016.
- Davenport filed an EEOC charge describing the “nude picture” comment and leave but did not mention the alleged bonus offers; she received a right-to-sue notice and sued under Title VII (quid pro quo and hostile work environment) and state-law false light/defamation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Edward Jones: (1) constructive-discharge quid pro quo claim dismissed for failure to exhaust; (2) bonus-based quid pro quo dismissed because the court viewed bonus denial as either not actionable or not shown; (3) hostile work environment and false-light claims dismissed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held the constructive-discharge claim was unexhausted; it recognized that a significant monetary bonus can be a tangible employment action but found Davenport produced no probative evidence that a bonus was available and denied because she refused Coyne’s requests; it also affirmed dismissal of the false light claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive-discharge quid pro quo - exhaustion | Davenport contends her EEOC charge supported a constructive-discharge quid pro quo claim based on Coyne’s conduct leading to her resignation | Edward Jones argues Davenport failed to exhaust administrative remedies for a constructive-discharge claim | Court: Dismissed for failure to exhaust; EEOC charge described a nude-picture incident and leave but did not allege resignation or severe/pervasive harassment supporting constructive discharge |
| Bonus-based quid pro quo — actionable theory | Davenport says Coyne promised "big bonuses" if she dated Fisher; refusal led to denial of bonus — quid pro quo actionable | Edward Jones argues (1) bonus denial is not a tangible employment action; (2) quid pro quo must concern advances by supervisor, not dating a third party; (3) Davenport produced no evidence she was eligible for or denied a bonus | Court: A significant monetary bonus can be a tangible employment action; supervisor conditioning bonuses on dating a third party can constitute sexual harassment; but summary judgment affirmed because Davenport failed to produce significantly probative evidence that a bonus was available and denied because of her refusal |
| Hostile work environment claim | (Raised below; plaintiff argued Coyne’s conduct created a hostile work environment) | Edward Jones argued conduct was not severe or pervasive | District court dismissed for not sufficiently severe or pervasive; not appealed to Fifth Circuit in this opinion |
| False light invasion of privacy (state law) | Davenport argues the nude-picture comment placed her in a false light that unreasonably invaded privacy | Edward Jones argues the comment was a bad joke and not objectively likely to place Davenport in a false light or seriously interfere with privacy | Court: Affirmed dismissal — comment was an ill-advised joke; not an unreasonable/publicity-based false light under Louisiana law |
Key Cases Cited
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (summary-judgment standard; sexual harassment recognized even between same-sex parties)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (defines "tangible employment action" and establishes employer liability framework)
- Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding denial of monetary bonus can be a tangible employment action)
- Alaniz v. Zamora–Quezada, 591 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 2009) (discusses quid pro quo liability based on supervisor’s sexual harassment)
- Casiano v. ATF (Casiano), 213 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2000) (setting elements for quid pro quo and employer vicarious liability)
- Womble v. Bhangu, 864 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding Title VII exhaustion is a precondition, not jurisdictional)
- Young v. City of Houston, 906 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1990) (reaffirming Womble on exhaustion not depriving jurisdiction)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (supervisor-based liability principles; example of quid pro quo with reassignment and economic consequences)
- Jin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting difficulty of documenting supervisor’s unilateral bonus-related conduct and relevance at summary judgment)