Hardage v. CBS Braodcasting, Inc.

and supervised Stauffer were by Patty WALLACE, SILVERMAN, Before: and Dean, the General Sales Manager, who PAEZ, Circuit Judges. was turn supervised by defendant Sparks, the station’s General Manager. WALLACE, Judge: Until about a month before Hardage re- The district court entered summary signed in August of he worked in the judgment dismissing Hardage’s Seattle sales office Sparks whereas worked harassment and retaliation against claims in management office in Tacoma. Inc., Broadcasting Viacom Television Inc., contends he sexually was Stations ha- and Viacom Broadcasting of by Sparks rassed CBS), Seattle Inc. several (collectively, occasions and pursuant subjected Title VII of retaliation Rights rejected Civil after he Act and the Washington Against Law her advances. alleges Discrim- He during that (WLAD). ination The district office, court con- visits to the Seattle she cluded that CBS was entitled to assert an repeatedly flirted with him inap- and made table, Hardage’s put and her foot “[y]ou need as comments—such propriate dinner, many stable At the end of the more older and crotch. somebody that’s Elbert, you.” Leo was too Sparks care commented that people can take that KSTW, that stated home, Sparks asked another to drive drunk “camp out” Sparks would apartment for stay Hardage’s could she with her feet office, in his chair kick back request her Hardage declined night. in a desk, giggle and smile on his witness, Sparks be- and, to one according Hardage asserts manner. flirtatious to drive off’ “livid” and “stormed came that he is Sparks, but flirted with he never home. herself by nature” person “flirtatious harassment out- second incident of git-go” from the banter “playful there occurred two workplace allegedly side he concedes of which Sparks, some Sunday events. mutually flir- after the Easter days perceived have been could he re- him to and invited He has also stated called tatious. “Bas- “Sparkalicious,” Sparks as for drinks after ferred to restaurant Icon Grill “Driving 32nd Flavor” restaurant, allegedly kin Robbins she At the work. depo- in his He also Sparky.” agreed Ms. able to Hardage she had not been told general his love life that sition in her having orgasms sleep and “was talk” “[d]efinitely” part of the “watercooler Hardage if he felt the asked sleep.” She around the of conversation big topic “a and her; Hardage replied that way about same office.” by damage to his career did not want he workplace charged go to the to no relationship addition and wanted having harassment, more serious Hardage alleges Hardage asserts friendship. than further outside of on five occasions a snide com- responded Sparks with that First, Sunday in Easter on office. of, forget “Don’t who along the lines ment husband, Dean, Dean’s Hardage, Sparks, you you to where are.” got at the attended a brunch a few others and Third, Hardage and August of that he Hardage believes Hotel. Sorrento to traveling to Texas were both Sparks invited who person might have been ar- Sparks respective families. their visit consumed group to the event. The Sparks and so that she plans her travel ranged eventually relocat- beverages and alcoholic other on the Hardage sat next each Hardage Sparks drove sports ed to a bar. Sparks alleges that flight. Hardage same drinks, more After a in her car. few rubbing her and her shoe started off took if her Hardage asked allegedly Sparks her to After he asked leg. his on foot her foot put and pretty, were then hands “in a kind rubbing back began his stop, she Hardage was hockey table while an air later referred Sparks a weird manner.” thought she had of if he and asked playing boyfriend as she was as her Later, Hardage Hardage was on while feet. cute attendant, flight allegedly got up from a Sparks ordering drinks game, skateboard him, drinks, put her consuming their they skateboard behind were on the and him that he explicit and told around his waist made arms his hand and grabbed she a “cute ass.” that Hardage had contends advances. him that him and told oral sex she offered bar, group went sports After with intercourse of sexual experience one and for dinner Paragon restaurant him. Hard- for life-altering would her beverages. drinking alcoholic continued physical would nothing told her age Hardage from across the Sparks sat table them. shoe, happen between under her slid allegedly took off and of alleged Ray Rajewski, presi- The fourth incident harass- ed an executive vice dent, of Hardage ment occurred October when who in turn called let and took some of Hardage Sparks KSTW’s him that he know would be contacted game. to a baseball This is the clients Falcone, Paul a representative from the of only alleged instance harassment out- company’s human resources department. workplace during that occurred side Hardage day Falcone called the same Hardage Spai'ks work-related event. Hardage’s to meet arranged other, and Sparks began sat next to each person him following with week. rubbing Hardage her foot. leg his During subsequent meeting— their out, know, responded, cut it “Kathy, you which occurred while Fal- Hardage drove us, got sitting inap- clients next to we it’s airport—he give cone to the did not Fal- Later, Sparks propriate.” allegedly took harassment; indeed, cone details about the put rain it poncho, Hardage’s off her over any he “didn’t gory share the so-called lap and reached under for anybody.” Instead, details with gave he crotch. states he her elbowed “|j]ust Falcone the broad statement ... away stop. hand her to and told [Sparks] had made ... sex- unwanted game, Sparks After the invited denied,” ual advances that were that he join him for drinks with his friends situation, was uncomfortable with the allegedly Sparks glared Pesos bar. had lost temper her and was friends, Hardage while he in- greeted ... “jeopardizing the success of the team.” women, shouted, cluding several “Who Hardage did not tell Falcone about you haven’t in here?” f—ed alleged physical groping by contact or pointed one woman states and re- Sparks. sponded jokingly, anybody “I haven’t f—ed It is undisputed although also that Fal- here, know, you in but hopefully she’s cone talk Sparks offered to and treat very next.” Sparks upset, became asked Hardage’s complaint anonymous as an car, to be taken back to her and shouted complaint, Hardage handling insisted on witness, Hardage. obscenities to One Leo Hardage situation himself. ex- Elbert, Sparks has stated that told Hard- plained deposition in his that he did not age, “Don’t to me. fin- f—ing talk You’re think could truly be handled ished.” anonymously, Sparks because would know day incident, after Pesos Hard- source, “prided and that he in [him]self age complained to Dean told her that handling own Ap- affairs.” [his] business “[ljast night, things way too far” went proximately two weeks after meeting, their Sparks that her temper. had lost Howev- Falcone up, called follow er, Hardage that has stated he did not tell Hardage informed nothing Falcone that “specifics her about sexual contact” and new happened had and that he still did not never Sparks told Dean that had touched want Falcone intervene. him in way, an inappropriate nor did harassment, In addition to sexual Hard- share details harassment with age subjected contends he was to retalia- anyone else at work. comments, tion. made snide such Hardage also testified that Dean later as, “your and, up” number’s not going “It’s suggested “to something the effect of ... to be my job, me that loses going it’s be ‘Why don’t you just do it and get it over ” you.” may with. It in put her a better mood.’ However, time, when told Dean about About Hardage’s per- the same incident, Pesos promptly Dean contact- formance called question. into When

1183 of material fact and any genuine issues Manag- are Local Sales another Hardage and correctly applied to meet court Stauffer, failed whether the district er, repeatedly in the advertis- slump law. Kohler v. Inter- due to relevant substantive goals sales (9th market, them on sev- Techs., 1167, counseled Dean Cir. ing Tel joint memo- 2001). and sent them occasions eral for trial unless is no issue “[T]here issues. discussing performance their randa favoring the is sufficient evidence there Furthermore, Dean August return a jury for a nonmoving party which cited a memorandum sent is If the evidence party. for that verdict in- performance, his work with problems colorable, significantly merely or is failing cluding his insubordination may summary judgment probative, charity attending a after return to work Lobby, Liberty v. granted.” Anderson had that he Hardage has conceded event. Inc., 242, 249-50, 477 U.S. The memoran- insubordinate. in fact been omitted). (1986) (citations L.Ed.2d 202 Hardage and Dean that dum indicated meeting to reevaluate have a formal would III. thirty approximately performance “an it is provides Title VII to see “[flailure that a days, and warned practice for an em employment unlawful could result improvement significant in against any ... to discriminate ployer termination.” [his] compensation, to his respect dividual 31, 2001, Hardage submitted August On terms, conditions, privileges employ He testified resignation. his letter ment, ... individual’s because of such had created adverse market conditions 2000e-2(a)(l). § This sex.” U.S.C. and had environment” “pretty intense is violated principle anti-discrimination ... was point to the [him] “deflated sufficiently se when sexual rope.” the end of [his] to “alter the conditions pervasive vere or employment and create of[the victim’s] II. Montero working abusive environment.” Title VII WLAD Hardage asserts Cir. Agco Corp., and retaliation of sexual harassment claims 1999) (alteration Meri original), quoting “Washington’s Against Law CBS. against 57, Bank, Vinson, v. 477 U.S. tor Sav. FSB law, and thus tracks federal

Discrimination (1986), 2399, 67, L.Ed.2d 49 106 91 S.Ct. law,” but only will cite federal analysis our 897, Dundee, v. 682 F.2d Henson quoting equal force to analysis applies with our Cir.1982). (11th 904 against CBS. claims WLAD vicariously is liable employer An Ass’n, 336 F.3d v. Pac. Mar. Anderson cre hostile environment (9th Cir.2003), “for actionable citing Payne v. 924, 1 925 n. (or Inc., by a with immediate supervisor ated Soc’y, Wash.App. 77 Home Children’s (1995); authority the em 1102, over 507, successively higher) see P.2d 1105-06 However, Relocation, Inc., the Su Id. at 861. ployee.” also Little v. Windermere Cir.2002) 958, 966, an affirma has established preme Court liability: courts look to federal law (Washington to vicarious tive defense and considering sex discrimination when action tangible employment When no claims). retaliation taken, may raise defending a liability or defense to an affirmative summary court’s review the district We by prepon- subject proof damages, whether, novo to determine judgment de evidence, Rule see Fed. derance light most evidence viewing the 8(c). comprises defense Proc. there Civ. non-moving party, favorable to the (a) necessary two elements: of environment, a hostile work and this employer exercised reasonable care to discharge constructive tangi constitutes a prevent promptly any and correct sexu- employment ble action. See Pa. State Po (b) behavior, ally harassing that the Suders, 129, 124 lice 542 U.S. plaintiff unreasonably failed to 2351, (2004) 159 L.Ed.2d 204 (holding that advantage preventive take or cor- discharge constructive precipitated by a opportunities provided by rective supervisor’s official act can constitute a employer or to avoid harm other- action”). “tangible employment He cites ... wise. No affirmative defense is avail- the sexual Sparks as well able, however, when the supervisor’s allegedly retaliatory actions—namely, tangible harassment culminates in a em- performance the adverse memoranda he action, ployment discharge, such as de- received, and Stauffer Sparks’ snide re motion, or undesirable reassignment. marks, August and the 2001 memoran Ellerth, 2257; U.S. 118 S.Ct. warning dum Hardage that his perform 807-08, Faragher, 524 U.S. at ance would be thirty- reevaluated after a Thus, even we assume that Hard- day period. He contends that after “en harassed, age sexually was can CBS avoid during the pervasive severe and harass (1) liability if it can show that it took no retaliation,” ... ment “finally came “tangible employment against action” to the conclusion that CBS would not take (2) Hardage, it exercised reasonable care complaints seriously” way saw “no (3) prevent harassment, and correct out” but to resign. He argues also he was Hardage unreasonably failed to take ad- constructively discharged by being placed vantage preventive oppor- corrective on “the same kind of probation under whether, tunities. We must determine which had employees [he] seen other con viewing the evidence in light most sistently jobs.” lose their Hardage, favorable to he has failed to raise a triable factual issue as to each element arguments These miss the mark. defense, this entitling thus sum- order to summary survive judgment on mary judgment. claim, discharge constructive plaintiff “must show there are triable issues of fact A. as to whether ‘a person reasonable in [his] “tangible A employment action consti- position would have felt [he] tutes a significant change employment quit forced to because of intolerable and status, hiring, firing, such as failing to discriminatory working conditions.’ promote, reassignment with significantly Co., Steiner v. Showboat Operating responsibilities, different or a decision (9th Cir.1994); see also causing significant change a in benefits.” Suders, 124 Montero, S.Ct. at In 2347. Ellerth, 761, 524 at 118 U.S. S.Ct. 2257. A 861, 192 F.3d at we held plaintiff that the tangible employment action “requires an was not constructively discharged part official act of the enterprise, company a because sexually harassing behavior act,” and “in most cases inflicts direct eco- had ceased three to four months before the 762, nomic harm.” Id. at 118 2257. S.Ct. plaintiffs resignation. Steiner, See also 25 1465-66; Am., F.3d at employed KSTW-TV, While Manatt v. Bank at of NA, (9th 792, Cir.2003). Hardage never 339 experienced any 804 decrease in compensation, hours, title, duties or concedes that the last time contends, however, benefits. He that he made inappropriate sexual ad was constructively discharged as a result 2001, vances or comments was March of discharge which is only a constructive months resign until five not yet he did result, 31, a act” can consti- later, by 2001. As an “official August precipitated harassment created Sparks’ “tangible employment if action.” Sli- tute environment, harass- such work ders, a hostile An at 2355. official act is “ of in advance ceased well ment supervisor ‘the means which resignation. enterprise brings power the official of ” 2353, at bear on subordinates.’ Id. retaliatory actions allegedly Nor do the Ellerth, 762, 524 U.S. at 118 S.Ct. quoting con Hardage amount to a against taken clearly proffered has occasional comments discharge. CBS 2257. structive for the non-retaliatory reasons under this standard. legitimate, are insufficient memoranda, which performance Thus, adverse Hardage has failed to establish to both addressed were as to whether he dispute material factual City Ma Brooks v. San See Stauffer. and he has constructively discharged, was Cir.2000) (9th teo, 917, 229 F.3d employ- alleged any “tangible other (“[C]onstructive when the discharge occurs ment action.” deteriorate, as a result working conditions discrimination, they point to the B. extraordinary ‘sufficiently become ” omitted) (citation (emphasis egregious’ In order to assert the Ellerth/Far added)). Indeed, undisputed that it is successfully, must have agher defense and failed to insubordinate Hardage was prevent care to reasonable “exereise[d] in his last few months as goals sales meet sexually harass promptly any correct Manager. a Local Sales Ellerth, at 524 U.S. ing behavior.” 2257; at Faragher, 524 U.S. 118 S.Ct. reason, if even we consider For this Kohler, 244 F.3d at tangible employment memoranda as 1180-81, standard to we construed this themselves, rather than in and of actions and remedial mea require preventive both discharge, components of constructive asserting from they not bar CBS sures. do Elvig See

Ellerth/Faragher defense. former, that an for the we held As Church, 375 F.3d Presbyterian Calvin anti-harassment adoption of an employer’s Cir.2004) (“[E]ven (9th tangible if a efforts to disseminate “policy and its occurred, action employment employees [the establish policy to its defense the affirmative may still assert care exercised reasonable employer] action ‘was unre employment tangible in the work sexual harassment any prevent harassment or lated to Ellerth, 1180; v. Azteca Rest. (quoting Nichols see also place.” thereof Id. Enter., Inc., case, 765, 118 Cir. In this S.Ct. 2257. U.S. (“Kohler Kohler, 2001))); 244 F.3d at 1180 anti-harass that CBS has an undisputed employ alleged cannot connect Hardage had fa which policy, ment rejec experienced to her ment actions she respon miliarity. supervisor, As a advances. supervisor]^ tion [her sexual harassment reporting for sible Therefore, has failed to demon Kohler and he department, the human resources as to wheth disputed factual issue strate was that sexual understood ac tangible employment suffered a er she Thus, duty to fulfilled its prohibited. tion”). a matter of preventive take measures promoting and awareness by adopting law re allegedly snide As for the policy. anti-harassment marks, of its emphasized Court has Supreme addition, however, In thorough CBS must investigation will be made” and steps taken to correct par have the “matter will be handled the strictest Kohler, promptly. ticular situation See convinced, Hardage was of confidence.” (“The 244 F.3d at 1181 [reasonable care] however, that was “absolutely there no prong of the affirmative defense also re way complaint] [his could be handled quires employer] to [the demonstrate that anonymously,” and he therefore told Fal- promptly exercised reasonable care to cone he wanted to by handle the situation sexually behavior”); correct harassing see Indeed, himself. he stated that when Montero, also F.3d After Sparks later mentioned words “sexual complained Dean October him, harassment” to he “felt like trust [his] immediately Rajew Dean contacted possibly been by had violated corporate ski, in who turn notified Falcone. Falcone information, and-—leaking because [he day called same he made his stated had] [he] wanted to handle the case thereafter, complaint, shortly they and met own.” [his] in Seattle. At meeting, their Falcone dis addition, In although Hardage put Hardage’s options. cussed did Hardage as CBS on notice of serted that he wanted to “unwanted “handle it sexu advances,” al Approximately [him]self.” weeks la he not tell two did Falcone ter, up Falcone followed with Hardage by “gory details” or apprise Dean of the “spe telephone, and indicated that he Instead, cifics about sexual contact.” he still did want Falcone to intervene. vague about the extent and nature of This would to end appear debate on Thus, Sparks’ advances. even if a more issue, this but Hardage argu two makes thorough investigation disciplinary and why ments as to there is a triable factual measures for the harasser could some dispute regarding requirement. this circumstances be in spite essential of a employee’s harassed First, request to emphasizes handle “inexpli- Falcone’s situation, there can no such in this investigate cabl[e]” failure his case. See Ellison v. discipline Sparks. Brady, Swenson v. Pot (9th ter, Cir.1991) (“[R]emedies Cir.2001), 271 F.3d 1184 we ex should be plained that sexually proportionately of the ha ‘assessed “[n]otice to the serious rassing triggers employer’s ”); Nichols, conduct ness the offense’ cf. duty to take corrective action that prompt F.3d at 870-71 (employer failed to meet is ‘reasonably calculated to end the harass obligations remedial after employee “re (citations omitted). ment.’ Id. at 1192 ported and specifics described the “The remedy reasonableness de harassment” to a human resources di (1) pends ability on its to: ‘stop harass rector, “expressed concern that ment by person who engaged in harassment would ig continue to be (2) harassment;’ ‘persuade potential nored”). alleged Dean’s comment harassers to refrain from unlawful con Hardage “Why you just don’t itdo ” Nichols, duct.’ Al at 875. get it may over with. It put her in a though an “investigation key is a step,” mood” certainly better troubling. How Swenson, 271 F.3d at we “consider ever, it cannot singularly serve to trans picture” overall to determine whether response form CBS’s into an unreasonable the employer’s response was appropriate. one, nor can it legal significance erase the Id. at 1197. specific request his investigate not to sure,

To be admittedly CBS’s poli- anti-harassment minimal vague complaint. cy states “[following complaint, a Considering picture,” the “overall CBS’s summary judgment without not withstand reasonable prompt and was both response gave that she the em- presenting evidence matter of law.1 as a to make a rea- enough information ployer there is Hardage contends Alternatively, was some employer think there sonable whether dispute as to factual a triable being sexually that she was probability . prior to his was on notice CBS v. Zimmerman Cook (quoting harassed.’ alleges 2000. He of Dean October to County Dep’t, 96 F.3d to complaints” “numerous that he made Sheriffs Cir.1996))). not told her he did repeatedly Dean and Yet Sparks. with left alone want was on Hardage argues also CBS Hardage asked dur- counsel for CBS when Dean of the harassment because notice every time he to state ing deposition his ha- Sparks’ some of personally observed about to Dean speaking recall could Yet, Hardage has stated rassing behavior. behavior, vaguely sug- flirtation,” that Dean also witnessed “some and a concert barbeque a event gested that the mutual “banter” and he concedes Coliseum, but he could the Mercer him could have been Sparks between Dean or what he told the dates remember context, Taken in perceived as flirtatious. not want to attend why he did about unreasonably report fail did not Dean may that he recalled events. thereby management, incident to to be alone he did not want have told Dean remedy duty to the situa- triggering CBS’s Hardage asserts was Sparks—which promptly. tion joke”—but a statement ongoing such “an addition, Dean Hardage suggests In of Dean notice hardly given have would to observe opportunity “had the draw- harassment. Even ongoing sexual daily basis in the work- on a inferences favor ing all reasonable However, July 2001—ap- until place.” are allegations undetailed Hardage, these after ten months proximately insignificantly pro- “merely colorable” and in October 2000— complained to Dean genuine dispute factual to create bative Sparks in Seattle and Hardage worked response was reason- whether CBS’s about Accordingly, Dean in Tacoma. worked 249-50, Anderson, 477 U.S. able. See to observe Hard- opportunities had limited 2505; City see also McPherson Furthermore, Sparks together. (7th age 430, 441 n. Waukegan, 379 names for Hardage’s playful Cir.2004) (“ given only possible ... ‘When “playful and their “Sparkalicious” such as ... is the employer notice to the source of invi- harassed, git-go,” repeated from ean- banter being she employee who requested that their com- never "depart[ing] from accusers dissent accuses us of 1. The investigated. See id. at 100-02. employer plaints not be requiring an well-settled case law prompt to the investigation take bears little resemblance an Thus Malik conduct quoted language is at present notice of al- action and the action once it is on corrective leged This "well-settled case circuit. harassment.” best dicta from another single support appears precedent out-of- to consist of is thus no law” There case, 1192) (at Corp., 202 F.3d a com- Malik v. Carrier that “even if circuit dissent's claim Malik, however, Cir.2000). (2d employer addressed requests take no plainant action, legal duty” significantly different context. still must fulfill its Malik, investigate complaint. It is therefore state the Second Circuit considered "depart well- would from the dissent that by a accused of harassment. law claims man investiga- by requiring an precedent negligent of emo- settled” filed suit for infliction Malik no matter how stren- negligent misrepresenta- tion in all circumstances tional distress and alleged victim asked uously repeatedly the investigation com- arising out of the tion investigation. company forego against at 99. Malik’s plaints him. 202 F.3d 1188 Sparks to socialize him company

tations to with not to investigate By specifi- it. work, and his failure to inform outside of cally requesting company not make Dean that flirtations were unwel- preventative use of its remedial and pro- harassment, Dean did not unreason- come cedures, Hardage unreasonably failed to ably report any fail to flirtatious behavior poli- make use of CBS’s anti-harassment by Sparks visiting she when was the Se- procedures. and cies attle office. Thus, Hardage has failed to establish a dispute material factual regarding C. the three elements of CBS’s affirmative now turn We to the third El defense. The distinct court properly en- lerth/Faragher requirement: that Hard- summary tered judgment for and CBS unreasonably age advantage failed to take partial summary judgment denied for preventive opportunities. corrective Hardage on his sexual harassment claim. manager charge As a local sales of su pervising approximately employees, ten IV. Hardage well aware of anti- CBS’s prohibits Title VII retaliation policy harassment and procedure for against employee opposing for unlawful Indeed, initiating complaint. he testified 2000e-3(a). § discrimination. 42 U.S.C. he understood that “all actual sexual prima To make out a facie case of retalia workplace harassment [his] dealt [was] tion, (1) Hardage must show that he en a serious manner.” He contends gaged in a protected activity, such as the “informally formally he and reported filing of a occasions,” complaint alleging the harassment on several and sexual harass (2) unreasonably ment; therefore he did not fail to subjected him to an ad make use of remedial preventive op (3) action; employment verse a causal portunities. link exists protected between the activity Manatt, and the adverse action. See 339

Yet, although Hardage contends the 800, Henderson, Ray F.3d at quoting v. in April commenced his 217 complaint Cir.2000); first to Dean that 1240 he has identi Brooks, fied with specificity was in October 2000— 229 F.3d at If Hardage approximately year half a later. “[W]hile case, prima makes a facie the burden shifts proof that an fulfill failed to legitimate, CBS to articulate a nondis ... obligation of reasonable care to avoid criminatory action, reason for the adverse harm is not showing any limited to unrea then bears the ultimate bur sonable any complaint failure to use pro den of demonstrating that this reason is provided by cedure the employer, a dem Manatt, pretextual. 339 F.3d at 800. onstration of such normally failure will subject contends he was satisfy suffice to the employer’s burden ed to retaliation in the form of adverse under [this] element the defense.” El performance memoranda being placed lerth, 2257; at U.S. 118 S.Ct. on thirty-day probation period. Ray, In 807-08, Faragher, 524 U.S. recognized we that “undeserved perform 2275; Suders, see also ratings, ance proven, would constitute (the Ellerbh/Faragher requires defense ‘adverse employment decisions.’ “plaintiffs reasonably to stave off avoid added), (emphasis F.3d at 1241 quoting harm”); Kohler, able 244 F.3d at 1181-82. Thomas, waiting year addition to half to make Yartzoff (9th Cir.1987). Here, contrast, a complaint, when Hardage finally made it is specifically asked the undisputed failed to meet Moreover, if Sparks’ even re disobeyed Dean’s instruc and goals sales charity collectively created a hostile work after a marks to work tion that he return retaliation, prove that failed environment constituted Hardage therefore event. if only the memoranda actionable it is link between such harassment “is a causal complaint. harassment to alter Hardage’s ‘sufficiently pervasive severe or Furthermore, that if we assume employment of the victim’s the conditions prima facie has established working an environ and create abusive to rebut case, he has failed we conclude quoting at 1245. Ray, 217 F.3d ment.’ for the memo- reasons legitimate CBS’s Inc., Systems, v. 510 U.S. Harris Forklift Manatt, F.3d at 801. 339 randa. See 17, 21, 367, 295 114 126 L.Ed.2d Moreover, 6 memo August for the except (1993). Considering totality of circum Hardage’s insubordi addressing randum stances, comments we hold that nation, per same received the Stauffer a retal insufficiently support are severe showing “Absent memoranda. formance Faragher, claim. 524 U.S. iation See treatment, [employer’s ac disparate (“ 788, ‘[S]imple teasing,’ 2275 118 S.Ct. retaliatory.” deemed cannot be tion] comments, isolated incidents offhand Brooks, 229 F.3d at 929. serious) (unless not amount extremely will addition, that discriminatory changes asserts the ‘terms ” (citation making “snide re- by employment.’ Sparks retaliated and conditions of threats, “your omitted)). num- such as marks” and got you forget who up”

ber’s and “don’t However, V. held we have you are.” where employment actions “only that non-trivial the dis Hardage appeals from Because employees would deter reasonable that trict court’s dismissal of his state WLAD Title viola- about VII complaining from by arguing against Sparks only claims actionable retaliation.” tions will constitute summary reinstated they should be Authority, Youth In Kortan v. California reversed, affirm we judgment for CBS (9th Cir.2000), 1104, 1112 we held 217 F.3d of this claim court’s dismissal the district stating laughing and supervisor’s that a 1367(c); § Acri well. See 28 U.S.C. him on sexual “got plaintiff that Assocs., Inc., 1001 F.3d Varían hos- charges,” supervisor’s Cir.1997) (en banc) (“ the usual ‘[I]n stares, were increased criticism tile claims are in which all federal-law case summary judgment preclude insufficient trial, of fac the balance eliminated before claim. retaliation dismissing plaintiffs declining to toward point tors ... will Brooks, (stating at 929 See also remaining jurisdiction over the exercise badmouthing outside ” (omission original) claims’ state-law not constitute job context does reference Cohill, Univ. v. Carnegie-Mellon (quoting Manatt, action); employment adverse 484 U.S. (“Mere in the work- ostracism (1988))). L.Ed.2d retaliation claim grounds for a place is AFFIRMED. (defini- Ray, 217 F.3d at 1243 cf. action” “does employment of “adverse tion PAEZ, part: Judge, dissenting Circuit by utterance co- every offensive not cover properly the district court agree I workers, statements offensive because summary judgment on granted reasonably deter em- do not co-workers retaliation discharge constructive protected activi- engaging from ployees not raise a claims, Hardage did and that ty”). Here, of fact as to whether he suf- otherwise. genu- issue the record reveals triable employment I tangible disputes action. ine factual as to both fered elements. however, majority’s agree, cannot Reasonably 1. Whether Acted CBS established as a mat- conclusion Prevent and Correct Harassment Faragher/Ellerth of law the defense ter “[njotice It is well-established of the liability for sexual vicarious sexually harassing triggers conduct an em conclusion, reaching In its harassment. ployer’s prompt to take corrective majority from well-settled case departs the reasonably action that is calculated to end employer an to conduct an requiring law Potter, the harassment.” Swenson v. 271 investigation prompt and take corrective 1184, Cir.2001) (internal 1192 alleged action once it is on notice of omitted). quotation marks The reason jury harassment. Because a reasonable remedy depends ableness of the on the readily vicariously could find that CBS is employee’s ability stop the harassment harassment, I liable for sexual would re- harassers, potential and to deter as well as grant summary judgment the verse of promptness response. the of the McGi Accordingly, I remand for a trial. dissent 1103, Corp., nest v. GTE Serv. 360 F.3d majori- from Parts III.B and III.C of the (9th Cir.2004). employer Once an is ty’s opinion. on notice of a sexual harassment com Faragher/Ellerth affir- To establish the plaint, it must investigation. conduct an defense, employer prove mative an must Swenson, 271 F.3d at An employ 1193. by preponderance of the evidence two “obligation er’s remedial actually has two necessary elements: parts. The first consists of temporary the (a) employer that the exercised reason- steps employer the takes to deal with the prevent prompt- able care to and correct situation while it determines whether the behavior, ly any sexually harassing justified. complaint is The second consists (b) plaintiff employee that the unreason- permanent of the steps remedial the em ably advantage any failed to take of ployer completed takes once it has its in preventive opportunities or corrective vestigation.” Id. at 1192. provided by employer the or to avoid law, Contrary to our majority case the harm otherwise. holds that an employer’s response to a Raton, Faragher City v. Boca 524 U.S. complaint may harassment be deemed rea- 807, 118 141 L.Ed.2d 662 sonable as a matter of law though the (1998); Indus., Ellerth, Burlington Inc. v. employer conducted investigation no 742, 765, U.S. took no action to harassing address the (1998). employer L.Ed.2d 633 An is not behavior. The majority relies on our summary judgment entitled to on this is- statement Swenson that “we consider genuine disputes sue unless no there are picture” overall in determining the of material fact as to either element of the adequacy employer’s response to a is, summary defense. That judgment complaint. harassment Id. at 1197. In must be denied if jury a rational could Swenson, however, we suggested never (1) conclude either that employer failed investigation that an required. was not to exercise reasonable care to prevent and fact, specifically we stressed the impor- promptly any sexually harassing correct tance of an investigation, stating: behavior, (2) or that did not unreasonably fail to advantage significant take The most immediate measure preventive or opportunities pro- employer corrective an can response take in ato vided or to avoid harm complaint harassment is to launch satisfy employer’s faith will not reme- investigation to determine prompt An justified. (quoting obligation.” is dial Id. Full- whether employ- Oakland, key step investigation City er power- (9th Cir.1995)). and can itself be a response, er’s future harass- deterring ful factor Here, majority acknowledges a sexual harassment By opening ment. human rep- told CBS’s resources all em- investigation, employer puts resentative, Falcone, Ray Sparks had that it takes such alle- ployees on notice “ advances.’ made ‘unwanted sexual seriously and will not tolerate gations Yet, Maj. op. at Falcone conducted An inves- workplace. and took no corrective investigation no by words but tigation warning, is a action. Nor did he even inform by action. made, complaint that a had been much less (citation omitted). Id. at 1193 Nonetheless, majority discipline her.1 the Swenson, investiga- the we held that a matter of concludes as law by employer was com- tion conducted the exercised reasonable care to correct however, noted, that even petent. We majority The relies Sparks’ harassment. investigation perfect,” were “less than two facts: told Falcone he on employer’s response was reasonable himself, handle the matter would id. at light picture,” of the “overall specific not offer Falcone de- did employer fact that the which included the Sparks’ sexually harassing about be- tails immediately warned the harasser that his Maj. op. havior. at 1186. Neither is a and or- conduct was sexual harassment absolving reason for CBS of its valid away him from the com- keep dered to investigate and correct harass- to separated him from the plainant, promptly ment. the outcome of the complainant pending First, re- complainant’s a harassment investigation, stopped and the harassment no action does quest employer that an take employer’s as a intervention. result obligation not relieve the of its hold, nor have Id. at 1192-98. We did remedy investigate under the law to held, employer may an we ever Equal The Em- harassing conduct. reasonably responded to a deemed have ployment Opportunity Commission’s altogether when it (“EEOC”) Enforcement Guidance Vi- Indeed, investigation. fails to conduct Supervisor for Harass- Liability carious investiga- ‘fact of we have stated that “the speaks precisely point: ment to this enough. investigation An tion alone’ is not desire employee’s A conflict between an predetermined to reach a rigged confidentiality employer’s in bad for conclusion or otherwise conducted Sparks' brought Kathy atten- deposition need to be testified in his as fol- 1. Falcone tion. lows: Further, Patty Dean testified: Q: confirm, your ... based on "Just to Q: you contact or Did Mr. Falcone ever you Hardage, didn’t conversation with Mr. any way regarding you in Mr. interview any investigation— conduct complaints Sparks? Hardage’s about Ms. A: Correct. No, A: I believe not. Q: —of these claims? Q: CBS, Okay. anyone Did at KSTW A: Yes. you, entity, contact ask the broader ever Q: Sparks I it that Ms. was never you, anything And take you any questions, interview any way? disciplined regarding Hardage’s Mr. com- of that kind even—my plaints Sparks? A: No. I never recommendation about Ms. Ray Rajewski A. No.” was that it didn't Moreover, investigate may majority purports if an arise em- while duty to supervisor about al- ployee informs picture,” to consider the “overall its ac- harassment, but him or leged asks her response count of CBS’s matter confidential and take keep complaint ignores indicating critical facts by supervisor no action. Inaction reasonably. that CBS failed to act could em- such circumstances lead to majority’s summary of these events is liability. may ployer While seem rea- “[A]lthough to talk brief: Falcone offered sonable to let the determine Sparks Hardage’s complaint and treat pursue complaint, whether to the em- anonymous complaint, Hardage as an in- duty to ployer discharge pre- must its handling by sisted on him- situation vent and correct harassment. Maj. op. at self.” 1182. This account EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious key aspects Hardage’s leaves out discus- Employer Liability for Unlawful Harass- sion with After Hardage Falcone. told V.C.l.d, § Supervisors, ment No. Falcone that had made unwanted (June 1999)[hereinafter 915.002 EEOC advances, Hardage, Falcone asked Enforcement This con- Guidance].2 same you “What would like me to do?” In expressed by cern Second Circuit response, Hardage “really said he d[id]n’t Corp., Malik Carrier know,” asked, my and options? “What are (2d Cir.2000). Although 105-06 address- you usually things?” How do handle these circumstances, ing slightly different the Falcone testified that he then told Hard- impor- Second Circuit Malik noted the (1) age Hardage he had three choices: tance of an of employer’s investigation sex- absolutely could “do nothing hope and it complaints, ual harassment even when the (2) itself,” Hardage solves could talk to drop victim desires to the mat- (3) own, Sparks on his or Falcone could ter: “very nicely talk with” and her ask employer’s investigation of a [A]n bit,” “just lay to a back on this little but he gratuitous is not a “yell assured he would not at her optional undertaking; under federal get her trouble.” law, employer’s investigate an failure to Notably, not of options one these ful- may jury impose liability allow a to legal duty investigate filled CBS’s to employer.... company’s Nor is the correct harassing behavior. The first duty investigate to subordinated to the options obligation two flouted CBS’s to drop. victim’s desire to let the matter Fuller, take prompt corrective action. See employers Prudent compel will harass- (“[IJnaction 47 F.3d fairly [cannot] ing employees to cease all such conduct be to a not, qualify remedy ‘reasonably said as and will request, even at a victim’s inappropriate may, tolerate calculated to end the harassment.’ Title conduct that immediately, permit not halted employers create hos- VII does not to stand tile environment. idly by they once learn that sexual harass- ment occurred. To has do so amounts to Thus, contrary majority’s holding, to the (cita- prior ratification of the harassment.” complainant requests even if a that omitted)). action, option tion The second in- employer also employer take no an still appropriately put duty prevent must fulfill its to the burden on correct alleged harassment. to correct the harassment. See Nichols v. Tech., interpreta- Holly 2. We have held the EEOC’s D. v. Cal. Inst. 339 F.3d expressed tions of Title VII as in this Enforce- (9th Cir.2003). respect.” “are entitled ment Guidance Inc., required trigger Enters., This is all that is CBS’s Rest. Azteca Cir.2001) employ- duty investigate that an and correct the harass- (holding responded to harass- unreasonably ment. er virtually “placed it complaint when

ment simply authority no for the There is victimized remedial burden on the all of its proposition employer that an who is on Finally, option—the the third employee”)- is re- notice of unwanted sexual advances any action CBS at only proposing one duty investigate of the and take lieved guarantee included all—improperly merely corrective action because the em- discipline Sparks would not ployee did not volunteer the details McGinest, F.3d at 1120 way. See harassing during conduct his initial com- (“Remedial measures must include some plaint employer, especially to the where— action.”). disciplinary form employer as here—the never asked for presented Falcone only It was after very point investiga- of an specifics. The legally inadequate options these three gather tion the details about handle the situa- Hardage said he would alleged Enforce- harassment. See EEOC if an could tion himself. Even § (providing ment Y.C.l.e.i ex- Guidance investigate and duty relieved of its amples appropriate questions to ask the by virtue of a harassing correct behavior during investigation, in- complainant to address it on his complainant’s request when, “Who, what, where, cluding, certainly own—which it cannot—this can- alleged how: committed the harass- Who where, here, “the overall not be true exactly ment? occurred or was What affirmatively reveals that CBS picture” said? When did it occur and is still legal about its own misled ongoing? did it occur? How Where often meaningful him and offered no alternative you?”). did it occur? How did it affect his own. An handling to the situation on an em- support To its conclusion that from employer may not shield itself liabili- ployer investigate has no to where erroneously telling complainant a ty by complainant “vague the is about the extent doing “absolutely nothing” that is a valid supervisor’s and nature” of a sexual ad- harassment, justify- and then response vances, majority the cites Ellison v. Bra- merely ing by stating its inaction it was dy, where we held that “remedies should “choice.” respecting employee’s the proportionately be assessed to the serious- Second, majority incorrectly holds the ness of the offense.” 924 F.2d duty” investigate can no that “there be 1991) (internal quotations omit- Cir. harassment where an or correct ted). Ellison, however, In we did not specific fails to offer details of the harass- a suggest investigation remedy that an is making his ing behavior the course may depend- may imposed that or not be complaint. majority initial The notes that offense; in- ing on the seriousness of the ‘spe- he “did not tell [Dean] said ” deed, there, inves- employer promptly the not cifics about sexual contact’ did “ requested that tigated the ‘gory Sparks’ tell Falcone details’ discriminatory from the harasser refrain Maj. op. majority, at 1182. The behavior. conduct, was a yet we held that there however, acknowledges “Hardage that did the rea- genuine dispute regarding of fact put CBS on notice of ‘unwanted Maj. remedy. Id. at op. at 1186. sonableness 882-83. sexual advances.’”3 Indeed, that testified that he told both testified that she understood Sparks had made un- Dean and Falcone that complaining about sexual harassment. advances, wanted sexual and Dean herself clear, steps reasonably calculated to investigation made “an and take As have we way to determine whether inaction in the principally end the harassment. CBS’s needed and cannot substi- any remedy is only Hardage’s complaint face of vio- Fuller, 47 remedy itself.” tute for the duty, it legal lated its also violated its own F.3d at 1529. policy written on sexual harassment. This policy states: Nichols, majority also cites where complainant report- that the had we stated Following complaint, thorough inves- specifics “the of the harassment.” 256 ed tigation by interviewing will made be Nichols, however, we F.3d at 870. individual(s) allegedly responsible for holding this fact in the context of noted harassment, any Af- witnesses. clearly court erred find- that district investigation, should it be deter- ter complainant reported that the had not ing true, allegations that mined are then support at all and in of our the harassment taken, appropriate action will be includ- complainant subjective- conclusion to, ing, repri- but not limited written ly perceived workplace to be hostile. mand, demotion, warning, suspension, (“Sanchez Serna, Id. told consid- dismissal. detail, the fact and nature of erable about noted, admittedly As never conducted also com- the verbal abuse. Sanchez investigation Hardage’s complaint general manag- plained the Southcenter any disciplinary and never took action manager, though and an assistant er Indeed, against Sparks. Falcone testified clearly less detail. It was erroneous to ... that his “recommendation was that it find, court, as did the district that Sanchez Kathy brought didn’t even need complained had not about his harass- record, Sparks’ attention.” this a ra- On ... complained ment. That Sanchez about readily tional trier of fact could conclude frequent, degrading sup- verbal abuse CBS failed exercise reasonable care ports our conclusion that the conduct was Sparks’ harassing to correct behavior. See unwelcome”). (“An Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1529 Moreover, actually Nichols undermines whose sole action is to conclude no There, majority’s conclusion. we not- harassment occurred cannot in mean- plaintiffs complaints ed that the did not ingful sense be said to have ‘remedied’ comply reporting require- with the formal happened.”). what ments of the employer’s anti-harassment majority’s contrary conclusion nonetheless, policy; plain- we held that the departure marks dramatic from our case complaints place tiffs “were sufficient to employer that an establishing law breaches the on company notice the harassment.” duty of it its reasonable care when fails to 256 F.3d at 876 n. 10. Because the em- adequately investigate, steps ployer nothing investigate did or reme- take to notice, Nichols, dy despite correct, the harassing this we conduct. See employer held that the did not exercise (holding employer 256 F.3d at 866-68 reasonable care and could not assert the did not exercise reasonable care to liability. affirmative defense to vicarious sexually promptly harassing correct behav- Nichols, point Id. at 877. As in the critical it investigate ior where “made no effort to here on of Sparks’ is that CBS was notice complaint; it not Sanchez’s did discuss his advances, yet unwanted sexual failed to allegations perpetrators; with the it did investigate remedy the harassment. or not demand that the unwelcome conduct cease; and it did not threaten more seri- Sparks’

Notice of unwanted sexual ad- triggered investigate discipline vances ous the event the harassment CBS’s Fuller, (hold continued”); 47 F.3d at 1529 sonably as a matter of law where it ing employer could not be shielded “promptly an investigatory convened com- liability from for sexual harassment where mittee, impartially which interviewed ev- investigation inadequate, its its offer ery suggested by witness” complainant victim improperly targeted transfer harasser; and the alleged employer harasser, victim rather than the and the reminded the harasser of its sexual harass- employer any appropriate “failed to take policy ment despite an initial determina- steps remedial once it learned tion that there was insufficient evidence of harassment”); Steiner v. Oper Showboat harassment; and once evidence came to Co., (9th Cir.1994) 1459, 1464 ating light substantiating the complaint, victim’s (reversing grant summary judgment employer asked the harasser to re- employer favor of on vicarious liability sign); Agco Montero v. Corp., 192 F.3d consistently where “was slow to (9th Cir.1999) (holding that em- claims, react to Steiner’s and did not seri ployer exercised reasonable care where it ously investigate strongly them or repri promptly investigated allegations, in- mand” the harasser until after Steiner complainant, terviewed the the alleged filed a equal with the state harassers, and employees other at the fa- commission); Ellison, rights 924 F.2d at cility, met employees with all “and made (holding that genuine issues of fact clear that company would tolerate no precluded summary judgment for the em Plaintiff,” retaliation against terminated ployer though “promptly investi harassers, one of the disciplined gated” the harassment allegation, where it others). contrast, two did nothing “did not express strong disapproval of to investigate remedy Sparks’ behavior. conduct, Gray’s not reprimand Gray, did apart Even from CBS’s inaction follow- put did him probation, and did not ing Hardage’s October complaint, inform him that repeated harassment Hardage raised a triable issue of fact re- would result in suspension or termi garding the reasonableness of CBS’s re- nation”). sponse to his earlier complaints Patty CBS’s conduct cry here is a far from Dean. testified that he com- actions that we have held fulfilled em- plained to Dean “numerous times” about ployer’s duty of reasonable care. For ex- Sparks’ unwanted sexual advances and Tech., ample, in Kohler v. Inter-Tel personally Dean observed Cir.2001)—where we harassment. He also testified that Dean “present stated that the facts paradigm responded complaints by Supreme ‘reasonable efforts’ the suggesting, “Why you just don’t do it and sought Court encourage when it estab- get it over It may put with. her in a lished affirmative defense”—the em- piece better mood.” This of evidence ployer “responded by promptly hiring a alone is genuine sufficient to establish a party neutral third to investigate Kohler’s dispute factual toas whether CBS exer- allegations,” though and even the investi- cised reasonable care in responding to gator did not confirm the harassment Hardage’s It complaint. is difficult to claim, employer nonetheless reviewed imagine juror how reasonable could its antiharassment policy alleged with the conclude that an employer suggests who harasser, reprimanded him for his behav- ior, complainant that the have sex with a ha- and conducted mandatory sexual rassing supervisor has reasonably harassment acted trainings for the entire work- Id.; D., force. see end the In Holly concluding also 339 F.3d at harassment. that 1177-78 (holding employer that rea- acted Dean was not on notice of Sparks’ harass- 807-08, at context, Faragher, 524 U.S. Dean in that “[t]aken

ment reason- report who exercised unreasonably fail to 2275. An did not thereby management, ag- “if the liable to CBS not be incident able care will remedy the situa- duty to CBS’s all of triggering could have avoided employee grieved 1187, the Maj. op. at ma- promptly,” tion employee [I]f the actionable harm.... account credits CBS’s jority improperly and an unreasonably delayed complaining, of in favor all inferences to draw and fails could have reduced earlier dismissing his claims as “mini- Hardage by could harm, affirmative defense then the at 18. Id. vague.” mal and EEOC En- damages.” operate to reduce § V.D. forcement Guidance Unreasonably Hardage 2. Whether Here, as a mat- majority concludes Advantage of Correc- Failed to Take unreasonably Hardage of law that ter Opportunities tive correc- advantage take of CBS’s failed to a above, genu the existence As noted “his first com- opportunities tive because prong either dispute regarding factual ine he has identified with plaint to Dean that precludes sum defense affirmative until six months about specificity” of CBS. Because favor mary judgment in Maj. began. op. Sparks’ after find that CBS failed jury could reasonable majority holding, In fails at 1188. so care, Hardage is reasonable to exercise light in most favor- the facts to view if could estab to a trial even entitled Hardage testified that Hardage Hardage. law that un able to matter lish as a advantage of harassing to take conduct to reasonably Sparks’ failed reported he See Nich opportunities. corrective CBS’s occasions” and told on Dean “numerous Nonetheless, it is ols, at 877. her, to be alone with her.” “I don’t want record, jury a reasonable that on this clear personally ob- that Dean He also testified ele on this second Hardage find for could behavior, harassing Sparks’ served well. ment as complaints response Supreme advances, Court held Faragher, Sparks’ unwanted about have “a that harassment victims “just get do it and suggested Dean under are reasonable means use such as Viewing the evidence it over with.” minimize the avoid or the circumstances Hardage, a reason- light most favorable [Ti from violations damages that result did not jury could find able S.Ct. 2275 tle VII].” U.S. unreasonably delay reporting omitted). (internal marks quotation Kohler, where the harassment. Unlike the defendant to squarely “burden [is] supervi- her about complained victim never unreasonably failed prove plaintiff that the 1181, here, harassment, 244 F.3d sor’s harm.” Penn. State to avoid or reduce complained about repeatedly Suders, U.S. Police v. Sparks’ behavior. (2004). 2342, 2354, 159 L.Ed.2d Moreover, had not com- failed to employee an proof that [W]hile delay until such plained October obligation of corresponding fulfill the unreasonable could not be deemed avoid harm is not reasonable care As the EEOC Enforce- matter of law. fail- showing unreasonable limited to “An explains, ment Guidance pro- any complaint procedure ure to use necessarily expected com- should not a demonstration employer, vided immediately after the management plain to normally suffice failure will of such relatively minor first or second incident under the satisfy employer’s burden might rea- An harassment.... the defense. second element of sonably ignore a small inci- put Moreover, number of “to her in a better mood.” dents, hoping that will undisputed it is that Hardage formally stop complaint pro- without resort to the complained day after the incident in cess.” EEOC Enforcement Guidance October when “things he felt went Here, § Hardage V.D.l. testified that the way too far.” Contrary to the majority’s incident October was “over the conclusion, CBS has not established as a line” and that he went into Dean’s office Hardage matter of law that unreasonably her, very day next and told “Last failed to take advantage of its corrective night, things way went too far.” He ex- opportunities. plained deposition, spilled it “When * * * over to it where affects the team that

reports directly to me that I’m An responsible employer who is on alleged notice of know, for—that’s—you ... I felt that harassment has a to adequately in- detrimental, line, over the uncalled vestigate prompt and take corrective ac- Finally, for.”4 if Hardage’s delay in tion reasonably calculated to end the ha- reporting the harassment can be viewed as rassing Despite behavior. having notice of circumstances, in light unreasonable advances, unwanted sexual jury this is a matter for a to decide. nothing. Accordingly, did I would reverse majority also concludes that Hard- grant summary judgment and re- age’s claim fails as a matter of law because mand for a trial. waiting addition to half a year

“[i]n complaint, finally

make a when Hardage

made his he specifically asked company Maj. investigate it.”

op. omits, however, majority 1188. The opted to handle the matter FIELDS; Tammany only Fields; himself James provided Falcone him after Haberman; with the aforementioned legally inadequate Hoaglin; Stuart Robert response options. Under circum- these Hoaglin; Kathie Shetler, Vanessa stances, hardly it can be said that Hard- Plaintiffs-Appellants, age’s Sparks’ sexually decision to deal with harassing actions himself per se unrea- PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT in light options

sonable of his other (PSD); Geisser; Michael Arland absolutely were nothing” “do Fal- have Atwood, Defendants-Appellees. cone, promised who not to take disci- plinary against Sparks, “very actions nice- No. 03-56499. ly talk with her ... and ask [her] please, just United States lay Appeals, let’s back Court on this a little bit.” Ninth Circuit. sum, Hardage complained numerous Argued and Submitted June 2005.

times to supervisor, his immediate who Filed Nov. 2005. personally observed the harassing behav- ior, yet ignored she his concerns and even

suggested sleep Notably, the incident in October 2000 is the then could not be deemed unreason- only failing report Sparks' incident of harassment that CBS charac- able in earlier con- correct, terizes as "work related.” If this is duct to CBS.

Case Details

Case Name: Hardage v. CBS Braodcasting, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Oct 31, 2005

Citation: 427 F.3d 1177

Docket Number: 03-35906

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.