Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Citation791 F.3d 488
Decision Date01 July 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–1442.,14–1442.
PartiesRenee PRYOR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

ARGUED:Spencer Freeman Smith, Smith Patten, San Francisco, California, for Appellant. Jody A. Boquist, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Dow W. Patten, Smith Patten, San Francisco, California, for Appellant. Paul E. Bateman, Angela I. Rochester, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Senior Judge DAVIS joined.

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:

This case most centrally concerns the question of when an employer may be held liable for a hostile work environment created by an anonymous actor. Renee Pryor, an African–American flight attendant, alleges that her employer, United Airlines, failed to adequately respond to a racist death threat left in her company mailbox. The district court concluded that Pryor was subjected to a racially hostile work environment, but granted summary judgment to the airline after deciding that it was not liable for the offensive conduct. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Pryor joined United Airlines in 1984 and began working out of Dulles International Airport in the early 1990s. In January 2011, she discovered in her company mailbox a paper note claiming to be a “Nigger Tag—Federal Nigger Hunting License,” declaring that the holder was “licensed to hunt & kill NIGGERS during the open search hereof in the U.S.” J.A. 209. The tag also purported to give “the holder permission to hunt day or night, with or without dogs.” Id. A hand-drawn image of a person hanging from a pole or a tree appeared on one corner of the document, along with the words “this is for you.” J.A. 1947.1 The mailbox was in a secure space at the airport, accessible to United employees and others with company authorization.

Pryor was shaken and afraid. She immediately sought out her supervisor, Richard Reyes, and showed him the racist death threat. Reyes told Pryor he was “sorry” but that there was “not much” United could do because there were no security cameras covering the area. J.A. 1948.2 Reyes gave Pryor a flight attendant report to fill out and told her that he would give the form—along with the offensive note—to security and the base manager. Pryor completed the form and gave it, along with the threat, to Reyes.

At the time, United maintained an official Harassment & Discrimination (“H & D”) Policy.3 The policy provided guidance for supervisors and managers when they received a complaint regarding harassment or discrimination. It instructed such employees to:

Listen to the allegation and regard it seriously. Contact the Employee Service Center immediately to report the complaint. The ESC will be responsible for initial in-take of the complaint and then forward to an investigative team for investigation and follow-up. The team will also direct you if your participation in the investigation is necessary. If the complaint is determined to be valid after a thorough and impartial investigation, the supervisor will administer appropriate discipline in consultation with the investigative team.
Supervisors and managers are additionally expected to monitor their workplaces to ensure compliance with this harassment and discrimination policy. Any supervisor or manager, who becomes aware of an incident or complaint of harassment or discrimination, whether by witnessing the incident or being told of it, must immediately report it to the ESC.

J.A. 2169 (emphases added).

Despite that policy, Reyes did not contact the Employee Service Center (“ESC”). Instead, he called Mary Kay Panos, the director of Inflight Services at Dulles, to inform her of the incident. Panos was out of the office (it was a Saturday) and told Reyes to put an envelope with the racist threat under her door so she could see it on Monday morning. When Panos found the envelope, she notified Denise Robinson–Palmer, an Operational Manager at Dulles, and instructed her to follow up. Panos, like Reyes, did not contact the ESC, even though she later acknowledged that it would have been proper protocol.

As both Panos and Robinson–Palmer were aware, the note left for Pryor was not the first incident of racism reported at United's Dulles facility. In the 1990s, Pryor received a question from an unidentified colleague about rumors circulating among United employees that black flight attendants based out of Dulles were moonlighting as prostitutes during layovers in Kuwait. Both Panos and Robinson–Palmer became aware of these rumors when they resurfaced in 20092010. Panos informally looked into the claims, but failed to substantiate them.

Panos and Robinson–Palmer were also both aware that just a few months before Pryor discovered the threat, an apartment advertisement with a racist message on it had appeared in the flight attendants' break room at Dulles. The message on the advertisement stated that “No niggers need apply.” J.A. 2182. Pryor never viewed the flyer, but heard about it from co-workers and a supervisor. Although brought to the attention of Panos and Robinson–Palmer, neither documented the incident, conducted any interviews, contacted human resources, or enlisted the help of corporate security. Instead, Robinson–Palmer called the number listed on the ad to try to determine who posted it. When the woman on the other line disclaimed any knowledge of the racist message on the advertisement, Robinson–Palmer “shredded [the flyer], because [she] was so offended by it.” J.A. 1340. The supervisor began to monitor the bulletin board and soon discovered a second identical posting. She again shredded it, without taking any additional action.

When Robinson–Palmer then became aware of the racist threat in Pryor's mailbox, she spoke to the flight attendant about it and contacted Michael Folan from Corporate Security. Robinson–Palmer did not contact the ESC. Security conducted no interviews of co-workers and did not preserve any physical evidence or “any hard copy documents concerning the investigation.” J.A. 2102. Security also claimed it was “unable to ‘brush’ for prints as there were no prints of other employees to match them with, and there was no telling how long the item was there, as anyone could have touched it.” J.A. 1484–85. In the end, United “was unable to identify a suspect or even a time of placement of the document.” J.A. 1484–85.

Corporate security closed its investigation on February 4, 2011. It appears, however, that nobody directly informed Pryor of that development. Increasingly frustrated, Pryor herself called the ESC and another employee hotline on February 16, 2011, to ask about the status of the investigation and express her unhappiness. The ESC referred the matter to Ally Zauner, a human resources manager in Chicago. Zauner made telephone calls to Pryor, her supervisors, and Corporate Security to gather information.

Despite the occurrence of a possible hate crime, and a crime that involved a threat of violence at a major airport, United never reported the incident to the police. Instead, Pryor made a police complaint on February 27, 2011, at the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority.4 In her police statement, Pryor recounted in part:

I showed [the note] to [Reyes]. He said we have no cameras so there is not much we can do. I was so stunned. I was hurt and even embarrassed ... The “Base Manager” never came to me!! The assistan[t] Base [Manager] did say (5 days later) she did hear of the incident. [Reyes] took the letter[,] put it in a large envelope[,] and told me it would be sent to Corporate Security. A lady from some [department] that handles sexual harassment called me Feb. the 18th, 2011. I returned her call Feb. 19th. She said United was busy merging with Continental Airlines and that she handles other types of situations. To say the least I have followed all the procedures United said to do but up until me calling HR in Chicago no one bothered to call me back.... I am stressed[,] hurt[,] and I do not feel safe at work. I dread going to my mailbox because I do not know if this person is in wait for me!! I do not feel safe!! ... I noticed how [supervisors] look at me different now. Mr. Barreta (supr.) has been good to me with his hugs. It took me a long time to get to the [department] in HR!! Why is this! The stress of this matter has changed how I feel at work. I keep wondering why and who. I thought this behavior was not tolerated in any work environment today ... It also bothers me that I was asked after my Moscow trip “what did I do” to get this in my mailbox. My response is what does a person have to do to get a note or to be called a racial slur[ ].
J.A. 2192–93.

When the police first approached Pryor's supervisors, they were greeted with less than enthusiastic cooperation. Panos told the officer “that they were in the middle of a situation and this was not the best time to meet.” J.A. 196. As the officer further noted on the relevant incident sheet:

Ms. Palmer and Ms. Panos stated the issue was being handled internally through Corporate Security and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and did not understand why the police [department] was involved. I explained that in the Commonwealth of Virginia the racial note was considered a form of Hate Crime and a Threat. I also informed that MWAA PD should have been notified on the date of the incident. I also informed that Ms. Pryor did not feel that United Airlines was handling the situation and felt that her job was unsafe. At that time, all the supervisors filled out the Statement of Facts form.

J.A. 196.

Pryor spoke to Zauner again after filing the police report. During that conversation, Zauner received “very limited”...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • Angelini v. Balt. Police Dep't
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 2, 2020
    ...reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Cybernet, LLC v. David , 954 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2020) ; see Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 791 F.3d 488, 495 (4th Cir. 2015) ; News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh–Durham Airport Auth. , 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010).4 The Court cit......
  • State v. Liebenguth
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 27, 2020
    ...; and "degrading and humiliating in the extreme ...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc ., 791 F.3d 488, 496 (4th Cir. 2015). For all these reasons, the word rightly has been characterized as "the most provocative, emotionally-charged and e......
  • Ortiz v. Vance Cnty. Sch., 5:18-CV-91-D
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • April 30, 2019
    ...that incident is extremely serious." Boyer-Liberto, 786 F.3d at 277 (quotations and alterations omitted); see Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc., 791 F.3d 488, 496 (4th Cir. 2015); Okoli, 648 F.3d at 220 & n.5. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Ortiz, Ortiz has failed to plausi......
  • Swindell v. Cacinss, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • September 30, 2020
    ...that incident is extremely serious." Boyer-Liberto, 786 F.3d at 277 (quotations and alterations omitted); see Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc., 791 F.3d 488, 496 (4th Cir. 2015); Okoli, 648 F.3d at 220 & n.5. Furthermore, in assessing the severity of the harassing conduct, the status of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT