Bookman v. Shakespeare Co., 2154
| Decision Date | 14 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 2154,2154 |
| Citation | 442 S.E.2d 183,314 S.C. 146 |
| Parties | , 64 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 671, 10 IER Cases 1695 Tracy D. BOOKMAN, Appellant, v. SHAKESPEARE COMPANY and Norman Rutherford, Defendants, OF WHOM Shakespeare Company is Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
John R. McCravy, III, and Bradley W. Knott, Greenwood, for appellant.
D. Clay Robinson and James M. Brailsford, III, Columbia, for respondent.
This is an employment handbook case. The trial judge granted summary judgment to the employer. 1 Bookman appeals. We affirm.
Bookman began working for Shakespeare in 1991. She received an employee handbook that specified immediate termination for "[e]ngaging in physical violence and fighting." It is undisputed that this handbook did not alter the at-will employment relationship. Thus, either party could terminate the employment relationship at any time for any reason.
In January 1992, Shakespeare distributed a document entitled, "Sexual Harassment Policy." It provided in pertinent part:
Complaints of sexual harassment will be promptly and carefully investigated and all [employees] are assured that they will be free from any and all reprisal or retaliation from filing such complaint.... Management's investigation will include interviews with all relevant persons including the complainant, the accused, and potential witnesses.
The policy makes no reference to the existing employee handbook, nor does it contain any disclaimer on not altering the at-will employment relationship.
In February 1992, Bookman became involved in a physical altercation with a fellow employee. Management interviewed both people immediately and thereafter terminated them for violating the company policy against physical violence and fighting. Management did not interview any potential witnesses to the incident.
Bookman does not claim she was fired in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint. The only issues on appeal are: (1) whether the employer had a duty to investigate the plaintiff's claim of sexual harassment under its sexual harassment policy; (2) whether it breached this duty by failing to adequately investigate her claim; and (3) whether this breach of duty caused Bookman's termination. 2 In essence, Bookman contends that had Shakespeare adequately investigated the incident, they would have discovered the altercation resulted from sexual harassment by the fellow employee and, therefore, would not have terminated her.
Viewing the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to Bookman, the facts are as follows: There was a history of verbal sexual harassment by the fellow employee prior to this incident. Shakespeare knew of some minor difficulties between Bookman and the fellow employee prior to the altercation, but Bookman had not advised Shakespeare of the sexual harassment prior to the post-altercation interview.
Immediately prior to the physical altercation, the fellow employee renewed his verbal sexual harassment. During this confrontation, he got "in the plaintiff's face," and his chest touched hers. They were arguing, and he was putting his finger "in her face." She slapped his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss v. City of Abbeville
...either actually received by the plaintiff or published to an employee bulletin board or the like. See Bookman v. Shakespeare Co., 314 S.C. 146, 442 S.E.2d 183, 183 (S.C.Ct.App.1994) (company "distributed" a sexual harassment policy); Leahy v. Starflo Corp., 314 S.C. 546, 431 S.E.2d 567, 568......
-
Anthony v. Atl. Grp., Inc., Civil Action Nos. 8:09–cv–02383–JMC, 8:09–cv–02942–JMC.
...because their employees were at-will, and were owed no duty whatsoever regarding their terminations. See Bookman v. Shakespeare Co., 314 S.C. 146, 149, 442 S.E.2d 183, 184 (Ct.App.1994) (affirming summary judgment of a lower court decision denying Plaintiff's claim that her employer failed ......
-
Anthony v. Atl. Grp., Inc.
...their employees were at-will, and were owed no duty whatsoever regarding their terminations. See Bookman v. Shakespeare Co., 314 S.C. 146, 149, 442 S.E.2d 183, 184 (Ct. App. 1994) (affirming summary judgment of a lower court decision denying Plaintiff's claim that her employer failed to ade......
-
Prescott v. Farmers Telephone Co-op., Inc.
...to follow the four-step termination procedure. 292 S.C. 481, 357 S.E.2d 452. Finally, the court held in Bookman v. Shakespeare Co., 314 S.C. 146, 442 S.E.2d 183 (Ct.App.1994), cert. denied, (S.C. July 14, 1994), that a "Sexual Harassment Policy" document limited the employee's at-will statu......