Jeanette Kelley v. Clayton Worley, Big/Little, Inc., and Certified Systems, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama addressed defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment case involving alleged sexual harassment under Title VII and related Alabama tort claims. The court denied summary judgment on the Title VII claim and the individual defendant's invasion-of-privacy claim, but granted summary judgment on the corporate defendants' ratification liability and on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The provided text begins the court's analysis of the negligent-failure-to-provide-a-safe-workplace claim.

Holdings

1. Kelley's deposition testimony created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Worley subjected her to unwelcome, actionable sexual harassment under Title VII; summary judgment on Count I was therefore denied.
2. The corporate defendants could not rely on the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense at summary judgment because Kelley alleged that Worley's harassment culminated in her discharge, a tangible employment action.
3. Kelley's allegations of repeated sexual harassment, including physical contact under her dress, could permit a reasonable jury to find an actionable invasion of privacy under Alabama law; summary judgment on Worley's individual liability was denied.
4. Summary judgment was granted to the corporate defendants because Kelley presented no evidence that they had actual knowledge of Worley's alleged conduct or ratified it.
5. Kelley failed to present substantial evidence of the extreme emotional distress required for an Alabama outrageous-conduct claim, so summary judgment was granted on Count III as to all defendants.
6. Kelley failed to present substantial evidence that the corporate defendants had actual or constructive notice of Worley's alleged incompetence, so summary judgment was granted on Count V.
7. Assuming sexual harassment could constitute a breach of the duty to provide a safe workplace, the corporate defendants satisfied their duty of reasonable care by providing an anti-harassment policy, definition, and reporting hotline; summary judgment was granted on Count VI.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Worley's alleged conduct constituted actionable hostile-environment or quid-pro-quo sexual harassment under Title VII.
2. Whether the corporate defendants could invoke the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense where the alleged supervisor harassment culminated in Kelley's discharge.
3. Whether the alleged conduct could support Kelley's Alabama invasion-of-privacy claim against Worley.
4. Whether the corporate defendants could be liable for invasion of privacy under ratification or respondeat superior theories.
5. Whether Kelley presented substantial evidence of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Alabama law.
6. Whether Kelley presented substantial evidence supporting negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claims against the corporate defendants.
7. Whether an employer's anti-harassment policy satisfied its duty of reasonable care on Kelley's negligent-failure-to-provide-a-safe-workplace claim.

Disposition

other