McKenzie stated that after she complained of the alleged harassment, she was terminated from her employment. McKenzie further asserted that when she applied for a positon with another employer, the defendant provided a negative employment review in retaliation for her harassment claims. The EEOC requested default judgment on both the sexual harassment and retaliation claims. The court found that Pedro ’ s conduct was unwelcome and based on sex, but it was not pervasive or severe enough to create a hostile work environment. The court also noted that when McKenzie complained, the conduct ceased, and there was no other evidence suggesting that McKenzie ’ s work conditions or terms of employment in the months following were altered on account of Pedro ’ s unwelcome conduct. Therefore, the court denied the motion for default judgment on the sexual harassment claim. However, the court granted a default judgment on the retaliation claim as McKenzie had engaged in protected activity by complaining about unwanted sexual advances, and her subsequent termination, with no legitimate grounds provided, established liability. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the EEOC ’ s motion for default judgment. Similar allegations of Title VII sexual harassment were alleged in EEOC v. Walmart, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124242 (N.D. Fla. July 17, 2023). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Joelle Saunders and a group of similarly-situated female employees, alleging that they were subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation by a co-worker, James Pollock, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The EEOC alleged that Pollock subjected Saunders to inappropriate touching, comments about her body, and harassment. Saunders reported the conduct to the defendant ’ s management, and following an investigation completed months later, the defendant terminated Pollock ’ s employment. The EEOC also asserted that the defendant terminated Saunders’ employment after learning that she filed a charge of discrimination against the company. The defendant argued that it promptly responded to the sexual harassment allegations with an investigation, and terminated the alleged harasser. The EEOC further contended that Saunders was terminated because she received several reprimands and warnings for absenteeism. First, the court found that the EEOC sufficiently alleged that the defendant was aware of the alleged harassment, and the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to establish a prima facie case of harassment. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment as to the EEOC ’ s sexual harassment claim. As for Commission ’ s retaliation claim, the court stated that the temporal proximity between the defendant learning of Saunders’ complaint and deciding to terminate her was enough for a jury to draw a causal connection between the two. However, the court ruled that the EEOC could not rebut the non-retaliatory reason offered by the defendant for Saunders’ termination, i.e ., her 7.5 occurrences in violation of the defendant ’ s attendance policy. The court reasoned that although the EEOC identified other individuals who were not terminated for similar violations of the attendance policy, they were not treated differently than Saunders because they were terminated for their violations of the attendance policy. For these reasons, the court granted the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC ’ s retaliation claim. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgement.
33
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online