Employees Must Accept Reasonable Remedies Offered to Cure Sexual Harassment Claims
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found an employee’s failure to accept several options proposed by her employer to remedy claims of sexual harassment absolved the employer of all liability. Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, 480 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff, a marketing representative, claimed she was sexually harassed by her newly appointed boss immediately after his promotion in November 2000. The alleged harassment consisted of inappropriate remarks, propositions, and gestures. Plaintiff reported her concerns to management in October 2001. The company immediately investigated the complaint by interviewing her supervisor and numerous co-workers in her office. The investigators were unable to substantiate her claims; however, the employer offered to transfer the complainant to another office, or have her and her boss undergo counseling with an outside psychologist who would then monitor their relationship. Plaintiff rejected both options and was then terminated for her refusal to continue working with her boss.
Following her termination she filed a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint. The company invoked the Faragher-Ellerth defense, which requires it to show it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior, and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the company. The court’s analysis focused on the corrective measures offered by the company. It found the offers of transfer and counseling reasonable, even though rejected by plaintiff. Because the company’s proposed remedial steps were reasonably calculated to prevent future misconduct they satisfied the requirements contemplated by Faragher-Ellerth. By rejecting the offers, and refusing to work with her boss, plaintiff left the employer with little leeway. As a result, her termination was proper.
The court also found the company’s investigation was reasonable even though plaintiff objected to several aspects of it. The judges found that a company need not conduct a “full-blown, due process, trial-type proceeding in response to sexual harassment complaints.” All that is required is a reasonable investigation consisting of at least an informal inquiry aimed at arriving at a fair estimate of the truth. In finding the company’s investigation appropriate the court cited its use of experienced investigators, interviews of all potential witnesses, and careful consideration of all evidence obtained.
Finally, the court turned its attention to the retaliation claim and found that the employee’s failure to cooperate with the employer’s reasonable corrective measures, and not retaliation for reporting the misconduct, was the reason for her termination. Therefore, her claim for retaliatory discharge was without merit.
This case is instructive in that it indicates employers who put in place the necessary policies, complaint procedures, and training to prevent harassment; adequately and promptly investigate all complaints; and offer reasonable remedies can successfully defend themselves when sued.
