Ariel Schlosser v. VRHabilis, LLCAriel Schlosser v. VRHabilis, LLC
Argued: July 17, 2024
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2024
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Bryce E. Fitzgerald, KRAMER RAYSON LLP, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. G. Brandon Hall, THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Bryce E. Fitzgerald, George R. Arrants, Jr., KRAMER RAYSON LLP, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. G. Brandon Hall, Lauren Irwin, Emily Costanzo, THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. After a four-day trial and multiple days of deliberations, a jury found that Plaintiff Ariel Schlosser proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her former employer, VRHabilis, LLC (“VRH“), subjected her to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex or gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
In May 2016, VRH hired Schlosser to perform unexploded ordnance (“UXO“) remediation at Cape Poge, an island adjacent to Martha‘s Vineyard. This remediation project required certified divers with weighted suits to extract UXO, such as practice bombs, bullets, or grenades, from the bottom of the sea floor to protect the public around the area. Schlosser was hired as “UXO Technician I,” which meant that she could serve as a primary diver, a standby diver, and/or a dive tender. While the primary diver is actually in the water removing UXO, the standby diver and the dive tender perform supportive roles, working to ensure that the primary diver is safe. Each of these roles had a different pay rate; a primary diver would receive the highest amount of compensation, while a dive tender working on the surface would receive significantly less. VRH staffed this project with two teams, each composed of approximately three divers and one diving supervisor. Notably, Schlosser was the lone female diver employed by VRH.
Several key events occurred during Schlosser‘s first week working for VRH. On or about May 25, 2016, the Diving Program Manager, Scott Alogna, observed Schlosser practicing her knot tying, which is a skill used extensively in diving to secure equipment. Alogna then asked Schlosser to perform a knot test and did not ask the same of any of the male divers. After this test, Alogna instructed Schlosser to practice her knots, making Schlosser feel “uncomfortable” and “singled out.” Trial Tr. Vol. I, R. 89, Page ID #3145. Schlosser began to practice her knots as instructed. When Alogna later witnessed her practicing her knot skills in the work truck, he told her, “[n]ow is not the time to do that. Help your teammates unload the boat.” Trial Tr. Vol. III, R. 91, Page ID #3543.
Schlosser then performed her first dive on May 26, 2016. During this dive, Schlosser did not perform as well as she had hoped, failing to meet her targets in clearing UXOs and having to exit the water to add more weight to her weight belt in order to stay near the sea floor. Even though an experienced male diver also exited the water to add weight to his weight belt, only Schlosser was subsequently removed from the dive rotation going forward. VRH leadership instructed the team that Schlosser should not dive and should instead perform the supportive, above-surface tender role for the foreseeable future.
Near the end of her first week, on June 1, 2016, Schlosser received verbal counseling from VRH‘s COO, Elliot Adler, regarding her work ethic. Adler explained that
After counseling with Adler, and still during Schlosser‘s first week of work, Schlosser also heard from a co-worker that VRH wanted to replace her. The jury reviewed text messages in which Ronald Madden, the Project Manager, asked VRH‘s Head of Human Resources, Diane Backes, to find a replacement UXO Tech I. After Madden specified that he wanted to replace Schlosser, Backes responded, “Oh . . . the female.” Pl.‘s App‘x, ECF No. 22, 11. Madden responded that his replacement decision had nothing to do with gender, but rather Schlosser‘s performance throughout her first few days on the job. Shortly after these text messages, Madden forwarded Backes a message from Schlosser‘s dive supervisor, Tyler Sanders, stating that Schlosser “bitch[ed] about everything,” “ha[d] a shit attitude,” and that he “[didn‘t] want to have to deal with this when we‘re supposed to be on our off time.” Id. at 12. Based on this report from the dive supervisor, Madden then texted Backes, “I‘m going to . . . get permission to purchase a ticket for tomorrow morning pick her up at the safety brief . . . and get her off [the] island.” Id. When asked about this message during trial, Madden stated that he was merely venting to Human Resources after having a few drinks and did not take any formal action to replace Schlosser.
In addition to Schlosser being prohibited from diving for a period of time, VRH also prohibited her from driving the company vehicle because she got the vehicle stuck in mud by driving off the delineated path. Even though other male divers had also gotten the vehicle stuck, they did not similarly lose their driving privileges. In one instance, a male diver backed the company vehicle into a tree, but he was not disciplined and continued to maintain his driving privileges. When Schlosser lost her driving privileges, she was forced to rely on her male coworkers to drive her to use the restrooms, which were too far away to walk.
Beyond feeling singled out due to the conditions of her work environment, Schlosser experienced significant friction with her divе supervisor, Tyler Sanders. Schlosser testified that Sanders harassed her and cursed at her on a daily basis. At one point, after receiving her counseling from Adler, Schlosser attempted to have a discussion with her teammates. In front of her team, Sanders became confrontational and screamed at Schlosser to stop talking because “[you‘re] not a real diver.” Trial Tr. Vol. I, R. 89, Page ID #3155. Among other obscenities and insults, Sanders also yelled, “[you‘ve] never worked a real job,” “[your] opinion doesn‘t matter,” and “shut the f*** up.” Id. Sanders did not display similar hostility towards the male divers.
Schlosser reported Sanders’ harassment to Paul Baril, the Site Manager. Instead of taking any remedial action, Baril told Schlosser that Sanders had insisted that Schlosser should be removed from his diving team. Eventually, on June 17, 2016, Schlosser reported Sanders’ harassment to Backes. In relevant part, Schlosser‘s email stated:
I am writing to you an official report of what I feel to be recurrent harassment by my superior. I recently reported this to the highest ranking person on the ground out here, yet nothing has been acknowledged on my behalf and no actions are being taken to resolve the issue other than an apparent threat on my job. I felt it necessary for my assurance that I send this directly to you to be documented. No action is necessarily needed, other than a stop to my daily verbal abuse. Once that ends, I have full confidence that my superior, Tyler Sanders and I, will be able to work together peacefully, respectfully, productively and without fault from here on out.
Pl.‘s App‘x, ECF No. 22, 40.
Backes forwarded the complaint to Adler, Madden, and Alogna with the opening, “[p]lease [see] the email from Ariel below. I know there has been talk about replacing her . . . .” Id. at 39. Backes did not investigate Schlosser‘s claims herself; instead, Adler and Madden decided to go to the job site and interview Sanders’ diving team. After Adler‘s conversations with the male divers and Schlosser, Adler determined that Sanders had singled Schlosser out and treated her differently than the rest of the team. During his testimony at trial, Adler acknowledged that the investigation was related to gender-based harassment. To prevent future harassment from Sanders, Adler switched Schlosser to a different dive team led by supervisor John Bigos. Sanders did not receive discipline or training related to sexual and gender-based harassment.
Throughout this investigation, Backes attempted to follow up with Schlosser regarding her complaint. Schlosser did not provide Backes with any additional details regarding Sanders’ harassment and instead participated in Adler‘s on-site interviews. At thе end of the investigation, on June 24, 2016, Schlosser sent the following email to Backes:
All issues have been solved swiftly and with great haste. VRHabilis has gone above and beyond to address and alleviate all concerns on my behalf. I am grateful to everyone involved in quickly and efficiently addressing the situation. I am relieved and more than satisfied with the end result. Thank you.
Def.‘s App‘x, ECF No. 15, 30. During trial, Schlosser testified that the team change was not made as a result of her harassment complaint, but rather Sanders requested that she be removed from his team. The jury reviewed evidence that, one day prior to Schlosser‘s transfer, Sanders requested that Schlosser receive formal counseling and be removed from his crew.
Schlosser‘s new team allowed her to dive again, and she dove seven times between June 29, 2016 and July 18, 2016. During many of these dives, Schlosser objectively outperformed several of her male teammates, and the record demonstrates that Schlosser‘s dive performance improved over time. Nonetheless, on July 18, 2016, Madden sent an email to the diver supervisors, once again specifically prohibiting Schlosser from diving. Madden based this directive, in part, on Sanders’ evaluation of Schlosser as the least productive diver. However, Sanders did not have the opportunity to observe Schlosser‘s improvement after her transfer away from his diving team. At trial, Madden and Alogna testified that, according to the dive summary, Schlosser was not the least productive diver. They also acknowledged that this least productive diver, unlike Schlosser, was never prohibited from diving.
On her new team, Schlosser also had issues with a male diver, Aaron Brouse. Schlosser testified that, similar to Sanders’ harassment, Brouse verbally abused her.
After Brouse continued to berate her, on July 28, 2016, Schlosser emailed Backes a resignation letter that detailed the harassment and discrimination that she experienced during her short ten-week employment with VRH. The email discussed Sanders’ and Brouse‘s insults and harassing behavior, the repeated prohibition of Schlosser from diving, and the various ways in which she felt singled out on the basis of her gender. Schlosser stated, “[m]y gender now feels, in itself, derogatory.” Pl.‘s App‘x, ECF No. 22, 87. After receiving this email, VRH did not investigate Schlosser‘s allegations. Instead, VRH leadership expressed relief at Schlosser‘s resignation.
B. Procedural History
After exhausting her administrative remedies, Schlosser filed this action against VRH in federal court, asserting that VRH engaged in unlawful sex discrimination, created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII. Following discovery, VRH moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied. The case proceeded to a jury trial involving approximately four days of testimоny and three days of deliberations.
At trial, Schlosser recounted several instances of harassment that she experienced. In addition, the jury heard from Human Resources Manager Backes, Diving Program Manager Alogna, COO Adler, and Project Manager Madden. At the close of proofs, VRH made an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied.
After three days of deliberation, the jury rendered a verdict, finding that Schlosser did not prove that VRH discriminated against her or retaliated against her, but that Schlosser did prove that VRH subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her sex or gender. Accordingly, the jury awarded Schlosser $58,170 in back pay.
Following the jury‘s verdict, VRH renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
Following the district court‘s order, VRH timely appealed and argues that the district court erred in denying VRH‘s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo the district court‘s denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc., 813 F.3d 298, 306 (6th Cir. 2016). “A court should render judgment as a matter of law when ‘a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.‘” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000) (quoting
B. Analysis
The jury in this case found that VRH subjected Schlosser to a hostile work environment, which occurs “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ . . . that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim‘s employment and create an abusive working environment.‘” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 67 (1986)). To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome . . . harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the charged sexual harassment created a hostile work environment; and (5) the employer is liable.” Randolph v. Ohio Dep‘t of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d 724, 733 (6th Cir. 2006). In this case, VRH does not dispute that Schlosser meets the first two elements of a hostile work environment claim. However, VRH contends that the harassment was not based on Schlosser‘s sex, nor was the harassment “severe or pervasive.” VRH further argues that there is no basis for employer liability because it took proper remedial action to protect Schlosser after she complained about the harassment.
1. Sexually Hostile Work Environment
Taking each of VRH‘s arguments in turn, we must first consider whether
At the outset, VRH argues that the district court “erred in considering: (a) the ‘knot test‘; (b) verbal counseling; (c) diving rotations; and (d) driving privileges as part of the totality of the circumstances that could constitute illegal harassment.” Def.‘s Br., ECF No. 14, 23. In other words, VRH contends that the district court should have considered solely the verbal abuse from Sanders and Brouse in determining whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of Schlosser on her hostile work environment claim. In support of this exclusion argument, VRH first claims that, as a matter of law, this Court cannot consider discrete acts of discrimination when evaluating whether the work environment was hostile. As a secondary argument, VRH contends that the jury‘s verdict precludes us from сonsidering these facts in this case. VRH reasons that because the jury found that these actions did not adequately support Schlosser‘s discrimination claim, the jury necessarily held that these four acts were not related to sex or gender. Accordingly, VRH argues that it is “inconsistent and illogical” to also use these acts to support Schlosser‘s hostile work environment claim. Id. at 24. Both of these arguments are without merit.
First and importantly, Schlosser‘s evidence is not cleanly segregable into two neat buckets of evidence. For example, Sanders’ ongoing verbal abuse toward Schlosser is further colored by his desire to continue keeping Schlosser out of the dive rotation. As explained further below, the court must review the “constellation of surrounding circumstances” and the totality of the environment that contributed to the alleged hostile working environment. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1998). Actions that may not, on their own, constitute Title VII discrimination may nonetheless contribute to a jury‘s evaluation of the overall environment in which the plaintiff worked. Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 563 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Nat‘l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113–15 (2002) (noting that an employee may use even untimely prior discrete acts of discrimination as “background evidence in support of a timely claim,” and explaining that hostile environment claims “are based on the cumulative effect of individual acts“); Hunter v. Sec‘y of U.S. Army, 565 F.3d 986, 994 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting that discrete acts of discrimination, such as a failure to promote, cannot alone amount to a hostile work environment). Although discrete acts of discrimination are not independently actionable as a hostile work environment claim, the jury may certainly consider such acts in its evaluation of the overall working environment.1
Accordingly, the district court and this Court may properly consider the “constellation of surrounding circumstances” in evaluating Schlosser‘s hostile work environment claim, which includes consideration of the four incidents listed above, any verbal or physical abuse that she experienced, and any other relevant evidence.
i. Based on Sex or Gender
Schlosser must first demonstrate that a jury could reasonably find that the harassment she experienced was based on her sex or gender. Indeed, Title VII “does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at ‘discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex.‘” Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80. This type of actionable harassing conduct “need not be motivated by sexual desire to support an inference of discrimination on the basis of sex.” Id.; see also Williams, 187 F.3d at 565 (“[H]arassing behavior that is not sexually explicit but is directed at women and motivated by discriminatory animus against women satisfies the ‘based on sex’ requirement.“). Instead, a plaintiff may offer evidence of general hostility to a certain sex in the workplace, or comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treаted members of both sexes. Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80–81. “Any unequal treatment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee‘s gender may . . . constitute a hostile environment in violation of Title VII.” Williams, 187 F.3d at 565 (emphasis in original).
In this case, the jury heard two types of evidence that may fairly be tied to Schlosser‘s gender. First, the jury heard testimony
Second, the jury heard testimony regarding incidents that were more directly tied to Schlosser‘s gender. Namely, the verbal harassment from her supervisor, Sanders, as well as from her co-worker, Brouse, involved referring to Schlosser as a “bitch” or someone who was always “bitching.” Such a term is indubitably sexually degrading and gender specific. Cf. Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655, 666 (7th Cir. 2012) (collecting hostile work-environment cases involving “bitch” as a gender-specific insult and similarly holding that “[t]he word is gender-sрecific, and it can reasonably be considered evidence of sexual harassment“); Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 813 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“It is undeniable that the terms ‘bitch’ and ‘whore’ have gender-specific meanings.“). And during the investigation into Sanders’ harassment of Schlosser, the male dive members corroborated that Sanders did not treat the men in the same manner. Beyond the gender-specific insults employed by Sanders and Brouse, the verbal harassment was charged with anti-female animus in other ways, such as by challenging Schlosser‘s capacity to be a diver and questioning the legitimacy of her obtaining the job. Cf. Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881, 905 (1st Cir. 1988) (finding that, although the verbal attacks from male supervisors and co-workers were not explicitly sexual, the challenging of the capabilities of the female plaintiff to be a surgeon was “nonetheless charged with anti-female animus” and “could be found to [contribute] to the hostile environment“).
Overall, the multiple instances in which Schlosser was ostracized while her male counterparts were not, coupled with the gender-specific epithets used, provide sufficient
ii. Severe or Pervasive
Schlosser must also show that a reasonable jury could find that the harassment that she experienced was sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of a hostile working environment. In determining whether Schlosser can meet this burden, both an objective and a subjective perspective must be considered. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21; Randolph, 453 F.3d at 733 (holding that to succeed on her hostile work environment claim, “the conduct must be so severe or pervasive as to constitute a hostile or abusive working environment both to the reasonable person and the actual victim“). As part of this evaluation, this Court must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” rather than each event complained of in isolation. Id. (citing Black v. Zaring Homes, Inc., 104 F.3d 822, 826 (6th Cir. 1997)). These circumstances may include “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee‘s wоrk performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. In other words, “we consider the ‘work environment as a whole,’ rather than individual instances of harassment.” Smith, 813 F.3d at 310 (quoting Bowman v. Shawnee State Univ., 220 F.3d 456, 463 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Importantly, this Court views whether harassment was severe or pervasive as “quintessentially a question of fact.” Id. (quoting Jordan, 464 F.3d at 597). As such, the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at trial, which involved weighing competing stories against one another. After all, “[c]ommon sense[] and an appropriate sensitivity to social context” enable juries to distinguish between simple teasing and conduct that a reasonable person in the plaintiff‘s position would find severely hostile. Oncale, 523 U.S. at 82. Accordingly, particularly on this fact-intensive question, a substantial degree of deference is owed to the jury‘s verdict. See Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 496 F.3d 609, 614 (6th Cir. 2007).
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could reasonably review the totаlity of the circumstances and determine that Schlosser was subjected to severe or pervasive harassment based on her gender. Cf. Williams, 187 F.3d at 564 (“[A] work environment viewed as a whole may satisfy the legal definition of an abusive work environment, for purposes of a hostile environment claim, even though no single episode crosses the Title VII threshold.“). On appeal, VRH ignores these requirements and separately attacks each incident of sexual hostility, rather than recognizing the collective import of the incidents over the course of a short ten-week period, which robs the incidents of their cumulative effect. But viewing the evidence in the aggregate, as this Court must, the jury
In addition, the jury heard evidence that Schlosser‘s immediate supervisor verbally harassed her on a daily basis for several weeks, including by stating multiple times that she was not a “real diver.” See, e.g., Trial Tr. Vol. I, R. 89, Page ID #3155. Sanders’ daily harassment, coupled with his clear desire to remove Schlosser from his team, complaining that she “bitched about everything,” directly affected the day-to-day conditions of Schlosser‘s work environment. Even after Schlosser moved teams—albeit at Sanders’ request—she continued to weather harsh verbal assaults by a co-worker, which often included being callеd “a bitch.” During one of these incidents, Brouse even tried to physically push Schlosser. Additionally, throughout her time at VRH, Schlosser was consistently fielding threats that she would be fired and insults that she was not qualified to perform her job. Not only did Brouse punctuate his verbal assault by stating, “they [will] fire you before they fire me,” but Schlosser testified that this type of threat was common from her co-workers and her superiors. Id. at Page ID #3176, 3189.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Schlosser, not a day of her ten weeks at VRH passed without some type of sexual harassment or ostracization. Accordingly, the totality of the circumstances could reasonably indicate that Schlosser suffered pervasive harassment that altered her job environment, conditions, and performance. Even though VRH cites several cases from this Court to support the proposition that the harassment Schlosser endured was not “severe or pervasive” enough to subject VRH to liability, these cited cases function to illustrate exactly how fact-intensive and credibility-orientated this prong of the hostile work environment inquiry is. Context matters for the jury‘s evaluation of the severeness or pervasiveness of alleged harassment. Cf. Trepka v. Bd. of Educ., 28 F. App‘x 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding no hostile work environment where employee presented one instance of a supervisor‘s “relatively contentious oral confrontation“); Goller v. Ohio Dep‘t of Rehab. & Corr., 285 F. App‘x 250, 259 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding no hostile work environment where plaintiff‘s supervisor frequently called her “Barbie” and never physically threatened plaintiff); Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 F.3d 341, 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding harassment not pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment where employee alleged three isolated incidents over a period of two and a half years). The distinguishable facts of these cases do not preclude a reasonable jury from finding for Schlosser on her hostile work environment claim, where the verbal abuse she endured could be reasonably viewed as significantly more aggressive, pervasive, and continuous.
The jury fairly concluded that Schlosser did not endure “simple teasing” or “isolated incidents.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 778 (1998). Instead, as the lone female diver, Schlosser faced daily threats to her employment, derogatory comments, verbal harassment, foul language, and constant changes to her pay and position “to which members of the opposite sex were not exposed.” Randolph, 453 F.3d at 734. And this harassment occurred
2. Employer Liability
Turning to VRH‘s second argument, VRH next challenges the fifth and final element of Schlosser‘s hostile work environment claim, which involves a showing of a basis for employer liability. This analysis differs depending upon whether the harasser is classified as a co-worker or as a supervisor who is capable of taking tangible employment actions. See Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 999 F.3d 400, 412 (6th Cir. 2021). With regard to the two complained-of harassers, based on the parties’ agreement as to their employment status, we analyze in turn the claims against Sanders using the supervisor framework and the claims against Brouse under the co-worker framework.
i. Supervisor Sanders
When evaluating harassment engaged in by a “supervisor,” employers may be held to a higher expectation and face potential strict liability, rather than mere negligence. Id. Specifically, an employer will be found to be “vicariously liable ‘when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action,’ . . . —i.e., ‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.‘” Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421, 429 (2013) (quoting Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 762 (1998); Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807–08). After all, the supervisor would not be able to take such an action absent the agency relation. But even if the supervisor‘s harassment does not culminate in a tangible employment action, “the employer can be vicariously liable for the supervisor‘s creation of a hostile work environment if the employer is unable to establish an affirmative defense.” Id. This affirmative defense, often referred to as the ”Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense,” requires a showing: (1) that the employer “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promрtly any sexually harassing behavior,” and (2) that the plaintiff employee “unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807; Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765.
Using this framework, Sanders could take “tangible employment actions” with respect to Schlosser, such as altering her pay by consistently placing her in the tender position. The jury reviewed evidence indicating that Sanders, as one of the two dive team supervisors, had significant input on the divers’ performance evaluations. Cf. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762 (explaining that a tangible employment action “may be subject to review by higher level supervisors“); Shager v. Upjohn Co., 913 F.2d 398, 405 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that the supervisor did not fire the plaintiff; rather, the Career Path Committee did, but the employer was still liable because the committee functioned as the supervisor‘s “cat‘s-paw“). Because the diving supervisors’ input and discretion emрowered them to assign their subordinates to different job duties, of which the
Construing the facts in favor of Schlosser, the jury could reasonably determine that Sanders’ harassment culminated in a tangible employment action. Schlosser was explicitly prohibited from diving on two separate occasions: (1) after her first dive in latе May 2016 for approximately one week, and (2) in late July 2016 until Schlosser‘s resignation. After the first prohibition from diving, Schlosser was cleared to dive again approximately one week later. However, prior to submitting her formal complaint regarding Sanders’ harassment, Sanders only permitted Schlosser to dive one time for 45 minutes over a two-week period. (Notably, this 45-minute dive occurred based on Adler‘s recommendation to Sanders; when Sanders made unilateral decisions in selecting divers, he refused to allow Schlosser to dive.) In contrast, the male divers on Schlosser‘s team received hundreds of minutes in the water. Schlosser dove on a consistent basis only after being moved to Bigos’ dive team.
Specifically regarding the second prohibition from diving, on July 24, 2016, Madden emailed Bigos and Sanders, instructing them to place only their “most productive” divers in the water. The email stated, “we need to evaluate who is superior,” and “we should be reshuffling the teams to achieve the best possible combination.” Pl.‘s App‘x, ECF No. 22, 42. Although the message also singled Schlosser out and stated that she should not be diving “for at least the next two weeks,” the jury heard testimony that the diving supervisors retained discretion over which divers could be considered “productive.” Trial Tr. Vol. IV, R. 92, Page ID #3728. Despite Schlosser being removed from Sanders’ team and the evidence that Schlosser‘s diving had improved, Sanders still replied to Madden‘s email, stating that Schlosser was “indisputabl[y]” the least talented. Pl.‘s App‘x, ECF No. 22, 84. Madden replied, “Bam. Perfect! This is what I needed to hear/see.” Id.
Based on this evidence, a jury could conclude that the sexual harassment from Sanders resulted in a tangible employment action—keeping Schlosser from diving, which caused her to reсeive significantly lower pay. Accordingly, a jury could reasonably find VRH strictly liable for Sanders’ harassment.
ii. Co-worker Brouse
Throughout trial, the jury heard testimony related to three separate incidents with Schlosser‘s co-worker, Aaron Brouse. And even though Schlosser highlighted these three particularly egregious encounters, the jury also heard testimony that Brouse harassed Schlosser daily, outside of these specifically described incidents. To find VRH liable for Brouse‘s actions, the jury had to find that VRH was “negligent in controlling working conditions.” Vance, 570 U.S. at 424. In other words, VRH may be liable for co-worker harassment “if it knew or should have known of the charged sexual harassment and failed to implement prompt and appropriate corrective action.” Doe v. City of Detroit, 3 F.4th 294, 301 (6th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
VRH attempts to skirt liability for Brouse‘s actions by arguing that Schlosser refused to report the harassment or provide a written statement regarding the second incident in which Brouse screamed profanities at Schlosser, including calling Schlosser a “slimy bitch.” This may be true, but it is not dispositive for the employer-notice inquiry, which asks whether VRH knew about the harassment. Randolph, 453 F.3d at 735 (finding summary judgment for employer was improperly granted where plaintiff‘s testimony indicated that supervisors were aware of harassment but largely ignored it); Jackson, 191 F.3d at 663 (explaining that, to hold an employer vicariously liable for a co-worker‘s harassment, an employee need not “report” the harassment; instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the employer knew of the offenses). VRH fails to provide any argument to counter the fact that Schlosser‘s supervisor, Bigos, was present for all three incidents and declined to take any action to stop the harassment, much less bring the harassment to the attention of Human Resources. Indeed, Bigos did not even become involved during the seсond incident—Brouse actually complained about Schlosser to the site manager. Throughout each described incident of sexual harassment, Bigos knew of the charged sexual harassment but failed to take any corrective action at all. Cf. Baugham v. Battered Women, Inc., 211 F. App‘x 432, 439 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Evidence a supervisor knew of the harassing conduct suffices to establish constructive notice.“).
Based on the evidence presented at trial, Bigos heard Brouse berating Schlosser on multiple occasions, calling her a “bitch,” and being aggressive towards her. Yet Bigos never reprimanded Brouse or took any action to correct this pattern of behavior. Cf. Clark, 400 F.3d at 350 (finding employer could not benefit from affirmative defense at the summary judgment stage where “there [was] a real question as to whether the supervisor[] should have taken the first step towards prevention and correction by reрorting [the observed] incidents to the relevant . . . personnel“). A reasonable jury could find that Bigos knew of the harassment and made no attempt to correct the problem of the sexually harassing behavior, thus establishing the required negligence on VRH‘s part. Because VRH does not dispute that Bigos may properly be considered a supervisor, this inaction may be reasonably imputed to VRH.
III. CONCLUSION
In this case, the jury heard four days of testimony and evidence and subsequently deliberated over the course of three additional days. VRH has not “overcome the substantial deference owed” to the jury‘s verdict. Braun, 828 F.3d at 510. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Schlosser, a jury could reasonably find that the severe or pervasive harassment was based on sex or gender, and that VRH should be held liable for its employees’ actions. For the reasons set forth abоve, we AFFIRM the district court‘s denial of VRH‘s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Schlosser‘s hostile work environment claim, thus allowing the jury verdict to stand.