Hattie Star v. Togo West, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans AffairsHattie Star v. Togo West, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
Plaintiff-Appellant Hattie Star asserts a hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
I. BACKGROUND
At the time of the events complained of, Star was employed as a housekeeper at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Her complaint is based on alleged harassment by a coworker, fellow housekeeper Oliver Watson.
At trial, Star claimed to be the victim of harassment that began in 1994 and lasted through the Fall of 1996. The district court found, however, that no harassment occurred before the Fall of 1996, and Star does not appeal that finding.
Consequently, the only events at issue on this appeal are two instances of unwelcome physical contact that occurred on September 12 and 13, 1996, during the same work shift. In each instance, Watson grabbed or put his arms around Star. At trial, Star claimed that Watson had squeezed her breasts, but her prior statements indicated only that he had grabbed her shoulders and hips. The district court did not resolve this conflict in thе evidence as to the parts of Star’s body that were touched or the manner in which they were touched.
On September 18, 1996, Star reported these incidents to her supervisor, James Craig. On the same day, Craig confronted Watson with the allegations, told him that the allegations were serious, and told Watson tо stay away from Star.
On the next work day, Craig reported the allegations to his superior, who instructed him to investigate the allegations, inform Watson that the аllegations were serious, and instruct both parties not to confront each other. Craig testified that he carried out all of these instructions, again tеlling Watson, on September 18, 1996, to stay away from Star. This testimony was uncontradicted.
On September 27, 1996, Star again complained to Craig about Watson, this time telling Craig that she was afraid of Wat
On October 15, 1996, Star, still feeling afraid of Watson and believing that not еnough was being done in response to her allegations, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) officer at the VA. Two days later, Watson wаs transferred to a different shift from the one that he and Star had worked on previously. Watson’s new shift overlapped with Star’s by one and one-half hours. VA employees testified that the shift change was not a disciplinary action against Watson but rather was a “precautionary measure” in response tо the EEO complaint. Administrative review of the EEO complaint concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of sexual harassment.
Star subsequently commenced this action for sexual harassment on a hostile work environment theory. After a three-day bench trial, the district court fоund in favor of the VA. The court found that the two incidents of unwelcome physical contact had occurred, assumed arguendo that those incidents created a hostile work environment, but held that Star “failed to sustain her burden of presenting sufficient evidence to establish that defendant knew or should have known that additional disciplinary action, termination or reassignment was appropriate or warranted.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.
Diamond v. City of Taft,
III. DISCUSSION
“Once an employer knows or should know of [coworker] harassment, a remedial obligation kicks in.”
Fuller v. City of Oakland,
Star contends that the district court erred in finding that the VA’s responsе to the harassment was adequate. She relies first on language in several of our cases indicating that an adequate employer response must always involve some form of “discipline” of the harasser.
See Yamaguchi,
We reject this argument. Although the cases in question do not define precisely what is meant by “discipline,” the
The discussion in the cited cases makes clear that counseling or admonishing the offender can constitute an adequаte “disciplinary” response. In
Yamaguchi,
we affirmed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of employer liability despitе the fact that the offender was never “officially disciplined or reprimanded for his actions” but was “ordered to have no further contact with” the рlaintiff, was moved to a different work site, and was forced to turn in his key to his previous work site.
See
In addition, Watson was not merely counseled. After having been ordered to leave Star alone, he was moved to a different shift, even though Star admitted that the initial order had brought an end to Watson’s harassing conduct. An employer’s refusal to apply the label “discipline” to any of these actions is not determinative of their adequacy as a remedy. What is important is whether the employer’s actions, however labeled, are adequate to remedy the situation.
Star’s reliance on
Fuller
is likewise misplaced. The defendant in that case took no remedial action whatsoever, and the cоurt held that the offender’s voluntary cessation of harassing conduct was in itself insufficient to discharge the defendant’s remedial obligation.
See Fuller,
IV. CONCLUSION
The VA promptly responded to Star’s complaints by counseling Watson and ultimately moving him to a different shift. The district court’s determination that this response was adequate, given what the VA knew or should have known, is not erroneous. The judgment of the district сourt is therefore
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. There was uncontradicted testimony at trial that Watson, a Vietnam veteran, was frequently intoxicated at work, sometimes spokе of having killed people (both while in the service and afterward), and so forth. Defense counsel conceded, in his opening statement, that Watson’s disciplinary record was indefensible.
. Conversely, of course, labeling an action as "disciplinary” would not be the end of the inquiry,