Sutherland v. Wal–mart Stores Inc.
| Citation | 632 F.3d 990 |
| Decision Date | 21 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–2214.,10–2214. |
| Parties | Maria Tara SUTHERLAND, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.WAL–MART STORES, INC., Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kathleen M. Sweeney (argued), Schembs Sweeney Law, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff–Appellant.Susan M. Zoeller, Shannon M. Shaw (argued), Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant–Appellee.Before CUDAHY, FLAUM, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
Maria Sutherland sued Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., in federal district court. Her allegations included maintenance of a hostile work environment based on sex discrimination and retaliation for reporting sex discrimination, both in violation of Title VII; violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Law; battery and confinement; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; constructive discharge; promissory estoppel; and negligent retention. The district court granted summary judgment to Walmart as to each of Sutherland's claims. Sutherland appealed the grant of summary judgment as to her hostile work environment and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. We affirm.
Sutherland and Arturo Aguas worked together in the deli section of a Walmart store in Seymour, Indiana. Sutherland worked at Walmart for seven years, often working with Aguas without incident. Each had a good employment record with the company until 2006.
Aguas's tenure at Walmart was not entirely without incident prior to 2006. Sometime during 2003 or 2004, then-Walmart employee Sherri Mullins complained to her supervisor that Aguas had been leering at her and asking personal questions. Two weeks after the supervisor confronted Aguas, Aguas gave Mullins a gift and a card. Mullins again complained to her supervisor; this time, the supervisor successfully warned Aguas off of any further contact with Mullins. Sutherland was unaware of this incident during the time she and Aguas worked together.
On December 11, 2006, Aguas assaulted Sutherland. Aguas convinced Sutherland to enter a cooler in the deli section by telling her she had boxes inside. Once inside, Aguas grabbed Sutherland and tried to kiss her. Though Sutherland rebuffed this attempt, Aguas was not easily deterred. He next gave Sutherland an inappropriate Christmas card—one intended to be exchanged between romantic partners—then grabbed Sutherland forcefully, kissed her on the lips, and pressed his pelvis against her. As Sutherland tried to retreat, Aguas put his hand inside her shirt and cupped her breast. Sutherland escaped and told two coworkers—Susan Basil and Debbie Lalonde—about the incident. She then left work early.
The next day, December 12, Sutherland reported the assault to a supervisor—Judy Brooks, acting lead of the deli section. Another employee had already reported the incident to Brooks.
Walmart's policy for investigating harassment complaints is to first interview the complaining employee, then to interview any witnesses, and finally to confront the accused employee with all information acquired during the investigation. Upon Sutherland's report, Brooks took Sutherland to assistant store manager Ralph Hixson, and Sutherland provided Hixson a written account of the assault. Hixson then took Brooks and Sutherland to store co-manager Randy Ward. Sutherland—still shaken—could not finish the workday, so she left early. She also called in sick the next day at Hixson's suggestion because she did not feel comfortable working with Aguas. Later in the day, Ward interviewed deli employee Marcella Templeton. He then turned the investigation over to co-manager Steve Langlais.
On December 13, two days after the assault, Langlais interviewed Lalonde. She reported her conversations with Sutherland about the incident and told Langlais she thought Aguas's Christmas card was inappropriate.
On December 14, Aguas left for an extended vacation in the Philippines, and Sutherland returned to work. Management again met with Sutherland, and Sutherland provided a detailed written account of the assault. On December 19, Ward interviewed Basil. She described her initial post-assault conversation with Sutherland and told Ward about Aguas's Christmas card.
On January 2, 2007, Aguas returned from vacation. When he returned to work, Langlais questioned Aguas while another manager, Dwayne Wise, acted as a witness. Aguas admitted hugging Sutherland, putting his face against hers, and giving her a gift, but denied touching her inappropriately or giving her an inappropriate card. Ward and Langlais then conducted follow-up interviews with Sutherland and Basil and re-interviewed Aguas to try to confirm Sutherland's allegations.
At the end of the investigation, the store managers could not substantiate Sutherland's allegations of assault. Only Sutherland and Aguas had witnessed the assault, and Aguas denied the most serious accusations. Aguas did admit to embracing Sutherland in the cooler, and other witnesses substantiated Sutherland's report of an inappropriate card. Ward and Langlais concluded these incidents were violations of Walmart's harassment policy. Ward and Langlais decided not to terminate Aguas. Instead, they issued Aguas a Decision–Making Day—Walmart's most severe discipline short of termination.
Aguas's Decision–Making Day was on January 8. The event provided no new information about Sutherland's allegations. On January 9, Langlais met with Sutherland and told her the investigation had concluded. Langlais also told Sutherland that Aguas would be severely reprimanded, but that management could not substantiate her most serious accusations.
During the investigation, but after Aguas returned from vacation, Sutherland was scheduled to work part of her shift in the deli with Aguas. After she expressed her discomfort, Hixson allowed her to leave work early. Hixson and other management then adjusted Aguas's and Sutherland's schedules to minimize their time working together. By the beginning of February, Sutherland's and Aguas's schedules only overlapped for about 90 minutes each week. When their schedules overlapped, Sutherland worked on the meat wall, which is roughly 80 feet from Aguas's position in the deli. Sutherland commented to Hixson that, though happy to be moved, she would have preferred to work even farther from Aguas. Sutherland and Aguas had no further contact during the length of their respective employments. In fact, Sutherland later reported that Aguas had intentionally avoided her after the assault.
On January 11, Sutherland reported the assault to the local police department. The police interrogated Aguas, who admitted to Sutherland's allegations after failing a lie detector test. Aguas later pled guilty to a charge of sexual battery. On or about March 6, the police provided Walmart with a report of their findings. Ward then hired an outside investigator to revisit the investigation. During an interview with this investigator on April 17, 2007, Aguas admitted to the allegations and to lying during Walmart's initial investigation. Walmart terminated Aguas that day.
In May 2007, Sutherland took a medical leave of absence for post-traumatic stress disorder. In November 2007, she was granted additional leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. By May 2008, Sutherland had not returned to work, and her Family Medical Leave Act leave had expired. Walmart terminated her employment on May 15, 2008.
Sutherland brought various state and federal claims against Walmart in federal district court. The district court granted Walmart's motion for summary judgment as to all of Sutherland's claims. Sutherland appeals the grant of summary judgment as to her hostile work environment and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Forrest v. Prine, 620 F.3d 739, 742–43 (7th Cir.2010). Summary judgment is appropriate when the full record shows that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2).
To demonstrate a hostile work environment under Title VII, Sutherland must show that she was subjected to harassment because of her sex, that the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, and that there is a basis for employer liability. Erickson v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 469 F.3d 600, 604 (7th Cir.2006). We, like the district court, assume Sutherland has provided evidence of harassment because of her sex that was severe enough to create a hostile work environment. To survive summary judgment, then, Sutherland needed only to introduce evidence to allow a jury to reasonably infer a basis for employer liability. Sutherland argues two bases for Walmart's liability: (1) failure to prevent the assault and (2) failure to promptly and reasonably investigate and remedy the assault.
Without citing any case supporting her theory, Sutherland argues Walmart is liable because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp.
...“was not required to completely insulate” plaintiff from Koester. Milligan, 686 F.3d at 385;see also Sutherland v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 632 F.3d 990, 993, 995 (7th Cir.2011) (holding that the employer's response was reasonable even where the harassed employee periodically had to work in t......
-
Williams v. Phillips 66 Co.
...a hostile work environment, if the employer does not promptly and adequately respond to employee harassment. Sutherland v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 632 F.3d 990, 994 (7th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). “[A] prompt investigation is the hallmark of a reasonable corrective action.” Porter v. Erie......
-
Milligan v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ.
...633 (1998). An employer is negligent if it does not “promptly and adequately respond to [the] harassment.” Sutherland v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 632 F.3d 990, 994 (7th Cir.2011). “[W]hat is [a] reasonable [response] depends on the gravity of the harassment.... [A]n employer is required to ta......
-
Hopkins v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.
...the facts give no reason to believe that parent would have an opportunity to harass Hopkins again. See Sutherland v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 632 F.3d 990, 994–95 (7th Cir.2011). After ensuring that Hopkins and the angry parent would never interact again, there was nothing left for the Board,......
-
Sexual harassment & discrimination digest
...inappropriate conduct toward women, it was not put on notice that he might commit a sexual assault. Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ., 632 F. 3d 990 (7th Cir. 2011). Second Circuit holds no continuing violation where all acts of alleged sex harassment occurred prior to statutory time per......
-
Internal investigations
...164 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) (prompt investigation eliminated liability for sexual harassment); see also Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, 632 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2011) (investigation conducted promptly and in compliance with company policy met the standard of being “reasonably likely to end ha......
-
Internal Investigations
...164 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) (prompt investigation eliminated liability for sexual harassment); see also Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, 632 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2011) (investigation conducted promptly and in compliance with company policy met the standard of being “reasonably likely to end ha......
-
Internal Investigations
...164 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999) (prompt investigation eliminated liability for sexual harassment); see also Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, 632 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2011) (investigation conducted promptly and in compliance with company policy met the standard of being 13-421 inTernal invesTigaTio......