Sellars v. CRST Expedited, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-2708,19-2708 |
| Citation | 13 F.4th 681 |
| Parties | Cathy SELLARS, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Claudia Lopez, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Leslie Fortune, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs - Appellants v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC. Defendant - Appellee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Amicus on Behalf of Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Joshua N. Friedman, I, Attorney, Rebecca Houlding, Shilpa Narayan, Giselle Brianceschi Schuetz, Friedman & Houlding, Mamaroneck, NY, Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Newkirk & Zwagerman, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jessica Ring Amunson, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, James T. Malysiak, John H. Mathias, Jr., Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, Nicholas Petersen, Kevin James Visser, Simmons & Perrine, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Sydney Foster, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Philip Matthew Kovnat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellants.
Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
Cathy Sellars, Claudia Lopez, and Leslie Fortune (hereinafter, the Plaintiffs) brought suit against their employer, CRST Expedited, Inc. (CRST), alleging Title VII claims of retaliation and hostile work environment on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as well as individual constructive discharge claims on behalf of themselves. As relevant to this appeal, the district court granted summary judgment to CRST on the class and individual retaliation claims, as well as on the Plaintiffs’ individual hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Plaintiffs are female truck drivers who represent a class of women who drove for CRST between October 12, 2013, and December 5, 2017. Sellars drove for CRST between December 2013 and March 2014. Lopez drove for CRST between April 2014 and December 2014. Fortune drove for CRST between November 2013 and January 2015.
CRST is a long-haul trucking company whose drivers begin and end trips at designated CRST terminals around the country. Drivers also stay at the terminals between loads as needed. CRST's employment policies apply at the terminals, as well as on the trucks. CRST's drivers work in pairs so that one driver can sleep in the truck's bunks while the other continues to drive. Typically, once a driver has been hired, trained, and licensed, CRST does not directly pair the drivers. Rather, it signs off on a pairing after the drivers mutually agree to take on a truck load, provided that there are no Human Resources (HR)-based personnel limitations, such as a "male only" tag on a driver. CRST will occasionally facilitate a pairing among available drivers, who then mutually agree to drive together. Drivers earn an individualized rate per mile depending on their experience (split-mileage rate). While on the truck, drivers can communicate with CRST management through a "Qualcom unit," a type of internal email and instant messaging system.
CRST's standard pay policy provides for two types of driver pay: an individualized split-mileage rate earned only while driving the truck, and set rates earned in other situations—such as layovers longer than 48 hours and time spent waiting for a road to become passable. If management removes a driver from a truck, CRST will pay for a hotel room and/or transportation to another CRST terminal or new load as needed. On or about July 1, 2015, CRST amended its standard pay policy such that drivers removed from a truck following a complaint of sexual harassment would receive a set rate of layover pay regardless of how long the layover lasted (HR layover policy).
Upon being hired, drivers receive a copy of CRST's sexual harassment procedures and acknowledge to management that they will report any sexual harassment that they experience so that they can be removed from the harassing situation. Once management receives a safety or harassment complaint from a truck-occupying driver, CRST's practice is to remove complainants from the complained-of situation as soon as practicable. CRST contends that removal is necessary, both for the safety of the complainants and for the facilitation of a prompt investigation by HR. As the only witnesses to harassment on the truck are often the complainant and the alleged harrasser, many complaints cannot be corroborated. Even in the absence of corroboration, however, CRST often designates an accused male driver as "male only," which precludes him from future pairings with female drivers.
In addition to the general sexual comments by coworkers, each of the Plaintiffs complain of multiple incidents of sexual harassment during their time at CRST. Included below are those specific incidents having a clearly established timeline in the record.
Sellars complains of at least three separate incidents of sexual harassment by three different male CRST employees during her employment. During her onboard training at CRST's terminal in December 2013, Sellars reported to her supervisor that a male CRST driver, Lydell Wilkerson, had made inappropriate sexual comments to her and propositioned her for sex. CRST sent Wilkerson out of the terminal to meet another load, after which Sellars was not again bothered by him. In January 2014, CRST assigned a male lead driver to train Sellars. While on the truck, this lead driver made sexual comments to Sellars, masturbated in her presence while inviting her to "join him," and attempted to remove Sellars's shirt while she was sleeping. Within six hours of Sellars's complaint to management about the lead driver's conduct, she was removed from the truck and Karen Carlson, an HR employee, began an investigation. This lead driver was thereafter moved to male only status. In February 2014, while still in training, Sellars reported to CRST's dispatch that another male lead driver, Dwain Monroe, had shown pornographic images to her on his phone, made sexual innuendos, and displayed a knife upon learning of her report. In response, CRST again removed Sellars from the truck and conducted an investigation. Although CRST could not corroborate Sellars's complaint and police did not find a knife during their search of the truck, Monroe was ordered to have no further contact with Sellars. Sellars terminated her employment with CRST in March 2014.
Lopez complains of at least four separate incidents of sexual harassment by four different male CRST employees during her employment. While onboarding at CRST's terminal in April 2014, Lopez complained to management that a male student driver had made multiple inappropriate sexual comments to and about her. Specifically, the driver allegedly told others that he was going to "come back for" Lopez and "rape and marry" her after training. Lopez also reported that he had asked her personal and suggestive questions and made her physically uncomfortable by rubbing her back and attempting to force her to hug him. CRST investigated and then placed the student driver on male only status. In July 2014, Lopez complained to her driving manager that her male co-driver had made sexual advances and comments while they were on the truck, had given her gifts that made her uncomfortable, and had attempted to kiss her. She also reported that she had awakened to find him sitting on her bunk stroking her hair. Lopez alleges that when she rebuffed his advances, he eventually drove away and left her stranded. No longer on the truck, Lopez did not report the harassment until her driving manager contacted her, whereupon CRST investigated and moved the co-driver to male only status. While on a truck with a different male co-driver in October 2014, Lopez awakened to find him naked, penis erect, on top of her. Lopez complained to management but asked to be allowed to remain on the truck and continue on to the Oklahoma City terminal. Based on Lopez's complaints and despite her request to stay with the load, CRST arranged for Lopez to exit the truck as soon as practicable, arranged for other transportation for Lopez to Oklahoma City, and investigated. Lopez quit in December 2014 after a third co-driver told her he "could kill [her] and leave [her] in the mountains" without anyone knowing, an incident that Lopez did not report to CRST.
Fortune complains of at least four separate incidents of sexual harassment by four different male CRST employees during her employment. During Fortune's November 2013 training, her assigned lead driver made multiple sexual advances toward her, including inviting her to share a bed and asking about her sexual preferences, while telling her that he had "never been with a colored woman before." When Fortune complained to CRST's safety representative at the terminal, CRST removed her from the truck, investigated the complaint, and terminated the lead driver for other reasons. Fortune completed her student driver training with Lydell Wilkerson without incident. Fortune alleges that later that month her first co-driver, James Parker, propositioned her for sex and viewed porn and masturbated in her presence. Fortune exited the truck at a truck stop and contacted her driving manager. Although the manager initially asked Fortune if she could stay on the truck and work it out, Fortune found another ride back to CRST's terminal. At the terminal, Parker spread rumors that Fortune was "a lot lizard," trucker slang for "prostitute," and continued making threats. HR minimally investigated both incidents and moved Parker to male only status. In May 2014, Fortune's male co-driver made suggestive comments about Fortune's looks, told her he "needed to know if she was clean" (impliedly from sexually transmitted diseases
), and asked to get into the bunk with her. When Fortune rebuffed him, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. City of Lincoln
...or constructive notice of the conduct, and (2) whether the employer took remedial action reasonably calculated to stop the harassment.” Id. at 697 (internal quotation marks and omitted). Although Benson is not pursuing “supervisor” liability for Mahler's alleged harassment, she repeatedly a......
-
Niekamp v. Mo.
...1247 (8th Cir. 1998)). “An employee claiming constructive discharge shoulders a substantial burden.” Sellars v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 13 F.4th 681, 700 (8th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). Here, the parties do not contest that Ms. Niekamp engaged in a protected activity by filing a complain......
-
McConnell v. Mayorkas
... ... law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 ... U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Disputes are genuine when “the ... ‘statements by nondecisionmakers.'” ... Sellars v. CRST Expedited, Inc. , 13 F.4th 681, 693 ... (8th Cir. 2021) ... ...
-
Corely v. CRST Expedited, Inc.
... ... relevant.”) (emphases in original). Evidence that CRST ... sought to avoid minimum wage violations in implementing its ... HR layover pay does not establish a retaliatory motive for ... the removal policy. See Sellars v. CRST Expedited, ... Inc., 13 F.4th 681, 694 (8th Cir. 2021) (explaining that ... to show pretext, plaintiffs must “both discredit ... CRST's proffered reasons for the alleged retaliatory ... action and show that the circumstances permit drawing a ... reasonable ... ...
-
Theories of liability
...“uttered in an ambivalent manner” and therefore “not tied directly to” plainti൵’s termination]. See also Sellers v. CRST Expedited, Inc. , 13 F.4th 681, 693 (8th Cir. 2021) (direct evidence does not include stray remarks.) However, in Bugos v. Ricoh Corp. , 2008 WL 3876548 (5th Cir. August ......