One of an employer’s most powerful tools for defeating workplace harassment claims is to take “prompt remedial action” upon learning of the alleged harassment.
When an employee makes a harassment complaint, an employer may avoid liability if it can establish that it took prompt remedial action to protect the employee. Whether an employer took prompt remedial action is a fact-based determination and although not all timely actions will absolve an employer from liability, a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case illustrates one employer’s successful efforts to respond to an employee’s complaints of harassment.
In Williams-Boldware v. Denton County, an attorney employed by the District Attorney’s Office of Denton County, Texas, complained to her supervisor about racially inappropriate language used by a co-worker. Within 24 hours, the supervisor reported the complaint to HR, who initiated an investigation. Shortly thereafter, the co-worker was reprimanded and was required to attend diversity training. The employer, at the employee’s request, allowed her to confront the co-worker about his comments. Additionally, the employee was transferred to a different division to make certain that she had no contact with the offending co-worker, or his wife who happened to be the employee’s supervisor. [Editor’s note: The employer’s apparently unilateral decision to transfer the employee is curious to the extent it could provide the basis for a retaliation claim by the employee; however, we will leave that discussion to another time.]
The employee subsequently filed a racial harassment and discrimination claim against her employer. After a jury trial, she was awarded $510,000.00. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the employer’s prompt remedial actions were sufficient to defeat the employee’s claims. In reversing the jury’s decision, the appellate court noted that an employer is not required to impose the harshest penalty in order to take sufficient remedial action. In fact, the standard that we suggest to our clients is whether the remedial action is reasonably designed to prevent further harassment. If the action meets that test, it is sufficient, even if the misconduct is later repeated. Relevantly, the court found there was no evidence that the racially harassing comments continued after the co-worker was reprimanded and sent to training.
The takeaways from this case are that: (1) it is essential for employers to train all supervisors to quickly respond to harassment claims (to include reporting the claim to HR and/or their boss); (2) employers must quickly investigate such claims; and (3) employers must be able to show that they have taken responsive action designed to stop harassing conduct once such conduct is determined to have occurred.
The Eastern Pennsylvania Employment Log (EPELog) is a publication of the KingSpry Employment Law Practice Group. Jeffrey T. Tucker, Esquire, is our editor-in-chief. EPELog is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
