Jones v. Wesco Investments, Inc., 87-1992
| Decision Date | 18 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1992,87-1992 |
| Citation | 846 F.2d 1154 |
| Parties | 46 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1431, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,985 Judith Ann JONES, Appellee, Daniel Jones, v. WESCO INVESTMENTS, INC., Benjamin Bryan Rose, Appellants. John Doe, 1, 2, 3 or more. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert G. Duncan, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
No argument for appellee.
Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD R. GIBSON and BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judges.
Defendant/appellant Wesco Investment, Inc. and Benjamin B. Rose (hereinafter collectively referred to as Rose) appeal the district court's 1 finding of sexual harassment committed by Rose against Judith Ann Jones, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. On appeal, Rose challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's decision. We affirm.
Ben Rose is the president of Wesco, a company which manages apartment projects. 2 Wesco hired Judith Jones, a married woman, as a receptionist on June 8, 1984. In October, Susan Rose 3 promoted Ms. Jones to office manager, and eventually Wesco constructed an office for Ms. Jones located in the loft area near Ben Rose's office. Ms. Jones terminated her employment with Wesco on February 8, 1985 because she could no longer tolerate the sexual nature of Ben Rose's conduct toward her.
From the beginning of her tenure with Wesco, Ms. Jones was barraged with repeated sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature. For instance, Ben Rose would come up behind Ms. Jones and rub his hands up and down the sides of her body, touching her breasts. He would pinch her, pat her on the bottom and kiss her on the top of her head. At one point, Rose even put his hand up Ms. Jones' dress on her outside thigh.
His oral comments included a statement that someday her breasts would be his. On one occasion, Ben Rose entered the kitchen area in the Wesco suite and informed Ms. Jones that he thought it a good idea that Ms. Jones spend more time in the kitchen area where it was cool because he could see her nipples much better in the cool temperature.
On at least three occasions, Mr. Rose requested Ms. Jones to accompany him to unoccupied apartment buildings ostensibly for advice involving the building or redecoration of the apartments. Each time, Ben Rose put his arm around Ms. Jones before she could extricate herself from the situation. On one of these occasions, Ben Rose also kissed her on the lips before she could pull away.
On each of the above occasions, Ms. Jones would either push Ben Rose away, remove herself from the room, or inform Rose that she was only interested in a business relationship. 4 Doing so halted Rose's advances, but only temporarily. His uninvited attentions recommenced with the next available opportunity.
Based on Ben Rose's conduct, the district court, in a bench trial, determined that Rose sexually harassed Ms. Jones. The district court awarded Ms. Jones back pay, interest on the back pay, attorney's fees and required Wesco to post a specifically worded notice advising Wesco employees that the employer does not tolerate sexual harassment. The court also required Ben Rose to post the same notice at every business he presently or in the future owns. This appeal followed.
A claim of sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII may be based on two types of conduct. First, "quid pro quo sexual harassment, which 'occurs when submission to sexual conduct is made a condition of concrete employment benefits.' " Hall v. Gus Constr. Co., 842 F.2d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1413 (10th Cir.1987)). The second type, called hostile work environment, exists when sexual conduct " 'has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.' " Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2405, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (quoting 29 CFR Sec. 1604.11(a)(3) (1985)). Under the latter theory, the plaintiff must show that "(1) she belongs to a protected group, (2) she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, (3) the harassment was based on sex, (4) the harassment affected a 'term, condition, or privilege' of employment, and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take proper remedial action." Moylan v. Maries County, 792 F.2d 746, 750 (8th Cir.1986).
Rose does not contest the facts as set forth above. Nor does he indicate how Ms. Jones failed to establish the elements required for a claim of hostile working environment sexual harassment. Rather, Rose argues that his conduct, as set forth above, is insufficient to support a claim for relief of sexual harassment.
The standard of review for Rose's argument has recently been stated in Hall as follows:
We must assess the trial court's factual finding that the women were subjected to sexual harassment under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Yates v. Avco Corp., 819 F.2d at 634 [6th Cir.1987]; see also Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club, Inc., 834 F.2d 697, 702 (8th Cir.1987). We may reverse the district court's finding of sexual harassment only if we are " 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 [105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 515] (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 [68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746] (1948)).
From our review of the transcript, we believe that the district court's decision is fully supported by the facts and law. 5 Indeed, any other result would have been a miscarriage of justice. 6
Accordingly, we affirm.
1 The Hon. D. Brook Bartlett, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
2 Wesco handles the bookkeeping, payroll and management of apartment projects owned by Wesco and by other companies, some of which are partially owned by Susan and/or Ben Rose.
3 From the record, it appears as though Ben Rose ran that part of Wesco which concerned apartment construction, while Susan Rose supervised the office portion of the business.
4 A court must consider any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Nelson Elec.
...employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take proper remedial action. Jones v. Wesco Investments, Inc., 846 F.2d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir.1988). "For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive `to alter the conditions of ......
-
Chester v. NW Iowa Youth Emergency Serv. Center, C 93-4024.
...42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); Graves v. Women's Professional Rodeo Ass'n, Inc., 907 F.2d 71, 72 (8th Cir. 1990); Jones v. Wesco Investments, Inc., 846 F.2d 1154, 1156 n. 5 (8th Cir.1988). "Person" is further defined as including "one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, politica......
-
Rene v. Mgm Grand Hotel, Inc.
...breasts); Bohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180, 1182 (7th Cir.1986) (pressing hands against crotch); Jones v. Wesco Invs., 846 F.2d 1154, 1155 (8th Cir.1986) (touching breasts, pinching and patting Such harassment — grabbing, poking, rubbing or mouthing areas of the body linked to s......
-
Stafford v. State
...upon the receipt of sexual favors from a subordinate, or punishes that subordinate for refusing to comply. Jones v. Wesco Investments, Inc., 846 F.2d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir.1988); Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 577 (2d Cir.1989); Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico,......
-
Where is the common knowledge? Empirical support for requiring expert testimony in sexual harassment trials.
...failed to take proper remedial action. See Staton v. Maries County, 868 F.2d 996, 998 (8th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Wesco Investments, Inc., 846 F.2d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 1988); Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611, 619-20 (6th Cir. 1986); Henson v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903-05 (11th C......
-
Recent Developments in the Law of Sexual Harassment
...Inc., 684 F.Supp. 532 (N.D. Ill. 1988). 20. Ross v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 681 F.Supp. 1547 (S.D. Fla. 1988). 21. Jones v. Wesco, 846 F.2d 1154 (8th Cir. 1988). 22. Shrout v. Black Clawson Co., 3 IER Cases (BNA) 492 (D. Ohio 1988). 23. Hall v. Gus Construction Co., 842 F.2d 1010 (8th......