Adams v. Austal: Panel Concludes that Plaintiffs Asserting a Hostile Workplace Claim Cannot Rely on Evidence of Harrassment of Which They Were Not Personally Aware

Adams v. Austal USA, No. 12-11507, from SDAl

 

Circuit Judge Pryor joined by Senior Circuit Judge Cox and District Judge Rosenthal (SDTx)

 

Summary: The plaintiffs sued the defendant for a racially hostile workplace. This case consolidated the claims of 26 different employees. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant in 13 of those claims; 13 proceeded to trial—only 2 of the trial claims were at issue in this appeal, and the jury found for the defendant on both of those claims.

First, the panel considered the grant of summary judgment. Of particular note, the panel determined that the district correctly limited its consideration of incidents of racial harassment to incidents of which the individual employees were aware.  A district court should not consider evidence of racial harassment of other employees that the plaintiff did not know about.

 

However, the district court went on to determine that seven of the thirteen employees had presented a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether there was an objectively hostile working environment. These grants of summary judgment were accordingly vacated and remanded for the district court to consider whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it was not directly or vicariously liable for the harassment.

Second, the panel addressed challenges to several rulings made by the district court during trial.  The district court did not err when it excluded evidence of harassment of which the employee was not personally aware and which was unrelated to their supervisors (this evidence would have been admissible in rebuttal, however, to prove the ineffectiveness of an antiharassment policy).

Under a Faragher defense, an employer can avoid liability for a hostile work environment by maintain an effective policy against harassment. The district court also did not err when it permitted the defendant to offer evidence of this policy.

The jury verdicts were accordingly affirmed, as were the rest of the summary judgments.