Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 96-6593

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore TJOFLAT and BARKETT; HOWARD
Citation121 F.3d 642
Parties74 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1694, 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,972, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 505 Gheila ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., a corporation, and Trivis Wood, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 96-6593
Decision Date10 September 1997

Page 642

121 F.3d 642
74 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1694,
71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,972,
11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 505
Gheila ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TYSON FOODS, INC., a corporation, and Trivis Wood,
individually, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-6593.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 10, 1997.

Page 644

Larry R. Mann, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Paul A. Gilker, Michael R. Jones, Gilker & Jones, Mountainburg, AR, Jack W. Torbert, Torbert & Torbert, Gadsden, AL, Billy J. McPherson, Oneonta, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and HOWARD *, Senior District Judge.

HOWARD, Senior District Judge:

Gheila Allen appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Tyson Foods, Inc., the dismissal with prejudice of all federal claims, and the dismissal without prejudice of the supplemental state law claims. Because we find that genuine issues of material fact exist in this action, we reverse the district court and remand this action for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Tyson is a national food processing company with a poultry processing plant located in Blountsville, Alabama. Tyson has a policy against sexual harassment. Plaintiff began working at the Blountsville plant in 1989. In March of 1994, she was transferred to production and began working in the rehang department where defendant Wood was a supervisor. Supervisors are the lowest ranked managerial employees at Tyson. Plaintiff offered evidence that, while working under Wood, Wood wrote her sexually explicit notes, solicited sexual favors from plaintiff, and improperly touched plaintiff on one occasion. Evidence was also offered that Wood had sent similar notes with graphic sexual references to other employees of Tyson and that he often told sexually explicit jokes to employees at the plant. Plaintiff also offered evidence that other employees at the plant

Page 645

were aware of Wood's alleged harassment of plaintiff. The record also contains evidence that other employees at the plant, including other supervisors, were aware that Woods had harassed other female employees.

Plaintiff produced evidence indicating that the Blountsville plant was engulfed by an atmosphere of improper sexuality. There was evidence showing that employees, including supervisors, engaged in sexual intercourse at the plant, that sexually graphic jokes were often told throughout the plant, that vulgar and sexually demeaning language was engaged in, that employees groped one another's breasts and genitalia, that employees exhibited their genitalia and buttocks, and that employees used various chicken parts to mimic sexual organs and activities. The evidence suggested that such activities were widely known throughout the plant.

At first, plaintiff allegedly believed that Wood was joking with her when he wrote her notes and did nothing to stop the harassment. With the fourth note, however, plaintiff contends that she asked Wood to stop giving her the harassing correspondence. After receiving a fifth sexually explicit note, plaintiff gave Wood a letter threatening legal action if he continued the harassment. Plaintiff had never complained to anyone at Tyson about her alleged harassment before this time. Wood returned the letter to plaintiff and reported plaintiff's complaint to his superintendent. Tyson management then initiated an investigation into the matter. Plaintiff contends that she was intimidated and harassed by Wood and other Tyson employees during the investigation. The company could not verify plaintiff's complaint and so no action was ultimately taken against Wood. At her request, however, Allen was transferred to another department. Plaintiff alleged that she was continually exposed to Wood after her transfer and that Wood continued to intimidate her. Consequently, Allen quit going to work and was terminated for her absence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After her termination, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a notice of right to sue. Plaintiff then timely filed suit against the defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff's complaint brought claims for legal and equitable relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, the tort of outrage, invasion of privacy, negligent hiring and supervision and constructive discharge. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to bring state claims for assault and battery and sexual harassment. The defendants separately filed motions for summary judgment to which the plaintiff filed an opposition. In her opposition to the motions, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew her claims under the equal protection clause against both defendants and withdrew her Title VII claim against Wood.

On April 23, 1996, the district court granted defendant Tyson's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the federal claims against Tyson. The supplemental state law claims against both defendants were dismissed without prejudice. In his memorandum opinion, the district court found that plaintiff's Title VII claim against Tyson bordered on the frivolous. The court focused on the fact that plaintiff had failed to complain to Tyson personnel of the alleged harassment. The court opined that the emphasis under Title VII should be on the curtailment of sexual harassment rather than on delay, damages and attorney fees and that the employer must be given the opportunity to cure the harassment before a lawsuit can be filed. Also, the court failed to find that there were no genuine issues of material fact.

Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the district court's dismissal of the action which was denied by the district court. In its opinion on the motion, the district court again failed to find that there was an absence of genuine issues of material fact in the action and explained that it did not reach the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1914 practice notes
  • Default Proof Credit Card System v. Home Depot, No. 03-CV-20094.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • September 30, 2004
    ...applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Allen v. Tyson Foods, 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997). An issue is "genuine" if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving part......
  • Roberts v. Archbold Med. Ctr., CASE NO.: 7:14–cv–210 (WLS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • November 16, 2016
    ...legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case." Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). "It is ‘genuine’......
  • Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp, Civil Action No. 1:12–CV–01822–RWS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • May 19, 2015
    ...not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ). "If......
  • Carrisales v. Department of Corrections, No. E020163
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 1998
    ...F.3d 1475, 1483; Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Communications, Inc. (10th Cir.1995) 61 F.3d 777, 782; Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (11th Cir.1997) 121 F.3d 642, 646; 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d).) In sum, these courts "uniformly judg[e] employer liability for co-worker harassment under a negligence stand......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1914 cases
  • Default Proof Credit Card System v. Home Depot, No. 03-CV-20094.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • September 30, 2004
    ...applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Allen v. Tyson Foods, 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997). An issue is "genuine" if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving part......
  • Roberts v. Archbold Med. Ctr., CASE NO.: 7:14–cv–210 (WLS)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • November 16, 2016
    ...legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case." Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). "It is ‘genuine’......
  • Green Party of Ga. v. Kemp, Civil Action No. 1:12–CV–01822–RWS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • May 19, 2015
    ...not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ). "If......
  • Carrisales v. Department of Corrections, No. E020163
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 1998
    ...F.3d 1475, 1483; Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Communications, Inc. (10th Cir.1995) 61 F.3d 777, 782; Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (11th Cir.1997) 121 F.3d 642, 646; 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d).) In sum, these courts "uniformly judg[e] employer liability for co-worker harassment under a negligence stand......
  • 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