Disclaimer:
The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law.
Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the
"facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be
the true facts.
-------------------------
Female employee presented sufficient
evidence to support jury verdict that her female supervisor sexually
harassed her.
Chavez v. Thomas & Betts Corp., 396 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. January 24, 2005)
- This is a Title VII action alleging sexual harassment and a FMLA action
alleging retaliation. In addition, Deanne Chavez has also brought various
New Mexico state law claims. Chavez claims that she was verbally and
sexually harassed by a female supervisor, that she complained about the
harassment, and that no corrective action was taken. She later took personal
and sick leave because she heard a rumor that this female supervisor (who
had transferred to another shift) might be transferring back to Chavez's
shift. While out on leave, she requested additional leave under the FMLA.
She was told to submit her paperwork no later than April 30, 2001. She did
not contact the company until May 7, and she did not submit the paperwork
until May 8. She was terminated for violating the employer's "no show"
policy because she failed to report to work or call-in to work for three
consecutive work days. Chavez claims her termination was retaliatory under
the FMLA. The district court granted summary judgment on the FMLA claim. The
sexual harassment claim proceeded to trial and the jury found in favor of
Chavez. She was awarded $145,625 in compensatory damages and $354,375 in
punitive damages against the company. Also, under the state law claims, she
was awarded $20,750 in compensatory damages and $3,250 in punitive damages
against the female supervisor. Both sides appealed and the Tenth Circuit
affirms. With respect to the sexual harassment claim, Chavez presented
sufficient evidence that the harassment was objectively and subjectively
severe so as to rise to the level of a hostile work environment. She also
presented sufficient evidence that the harassment was based on sex under the
"third evidentiary route" described in
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S.Ct. 998 (March 4,
1998)(i.e., direct, comparative evidence about how the harasser treated
males and females differently in a mixed-sex work environment). With respect
to the jury's award of punitive damages, the Court finds sufficient evidence
that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination "with malice or with
reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved
individual." Chavez complained to the company's supervisors, production
managers, the human resources department, and the plant manager -- all to no
avail. One supervisor was even present when the harasser pulled open
Chavez's pants exposing her underwear to co-workers, and the supervisor did
nothing. Finally, a production supervisor had submitted two memos to the
company pointing out that this supervisor's conduct was unacceptable, and
nothing was done. Next, with respect to the issue of attorney's fees and
costs, the district court awarded $164,261.78. The company argues that
Chavez was awarded fees for her unsuccessful claims as well as her
successful claims. On this subject, the Tenth Circuit points out that the
Supreme Court has said that a plaintiff should not receive fees for time
spent on claims "unrelated" to those on which the plaintiff prevails. On the
other hand, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not have his
attorney's fee reduced simply because the district court did not adopt each
contention raised. The critical issue is whether the unsuccessful claims
were "related claims" or "distinct in all respects" from the successful
claims. In this case, the Tenth Circuit finds the claims to be related to
the Title VII sexual harassment claim and based upon a "common core of
facts." Next, Chavez appeals the grant of summary judgment on her FMLA
retaliation claim. The company offered a non-retaliatory reason for her
termination (her violation of the "no show" policy) and she did not present
sufficient evidence of pretext. Therefore, the grant of summary judgment as
to that claim is affirmed. This case summary does not address various New
Mexico state law claims.