710 F. App'x 47
2d Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Odell Willis, a deputy sheriff in Onondaga County, sued the County alleging racial and sexual harassment by coworkers (including “Sergeant B” and “Deputy A”), and retaliation; he brought six causes of action including Title VII, § 1981, and NYSHRL claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for the County; Willis appealed.
- Alleged misconduct included unwanted sexual touching and graphic sexual comments, racially hostile comments/actions, and alleged retaliation after complaints.
- County had anti-harassment policies, annual diversity training for deputies, and a complaint/investigation procedure (including involvement of the Professional Standards Unit).
- The record shows supervisors investigated several reported incidents and issued supervisory memoranda; Willis both used the complaint process at times and refrained at other times citing fear of reprisal.
- District court dismissed some asserted earlier incidents as relitigated/claim-precluded (from a prior adjudication) rather than time-barred; it also rejected a retaliation claim as not pleaded in the Causes of Action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment under Title VII | Willis contends repeated sexual and racial misconduct by coworkers (and Sergeant B) created an abusive environment | County argues incidents were not severe/pervasive enough and it exercised reasonable preventive/corrective measures | Court held County entitled to judgment: either conduct not shown to meet severity/pervasiveness or employer not liable because it took reasonable care |
| Whether employer can be imputed with liability for supervisor or coworker harassment | Willis argues conduct by Sergeant B and others should be imputed to County | County points to training, policies, and investigations showing reasonable care and corrective action | Court applied Ellerth affirmative defense framework; employer’s preventive/corrective measures and investigations defeated imputation or liability |
| Whether County provided a reasonable avenue for complaints and promptly investigated reported incidents | Willis asserts fear of reprisal deterred reporting and investigations were inadequate/bias | County shows policies, annual training, PSU involvement, and multiple investigations/supervisory memoranda addressing Willis’s complaints | Court found County provided reasonable avenues and did investigate; no evidence of biased investigations sufficient to deny summary judgment |
| Whether earlier incidents are actionable despite being older than 300 days (continuing violation/claim preclusion issue) | Willis invokes continuing violation doctrine to revive pre‑cutoff incidents | County and court treat earlier incidents as relitigated/claim-precluded because Willis could have raised them in a prior action that resulted in merits adjudication | Court affirmed dismissal: claim preclusion bars relitigation; continuing violation did not revive those matters |
Key Cases Cited
- VKK Corp. Nat’l v. Football League, 244 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (view evidence for summary judgment in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements of hostile work environment under Title VII)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (employer affirmative defense to supervisor harassment)
- Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2000) (employer liability for coworker harassment when employer lacked reasonable avenue or knew and did nothing)
- TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493 (2d Cir. 2014) (claim preclusion principles)