Irene Hanlon, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Terry Chambers (West Virginia 1995)

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a summary judgment for an employer on a supervisor's claims that her subordinate sexually harassed her and that she was fired for complaining about it. The court held that the West Virginia Human Rights Act imposes on employers a duty to keep workplaces free of sexual harassment from whatever source, so supervisory employees may sue for a subordinate's hostile-environment harassment, with employer liability turning on the employer's knowledge and the adequacy of its response. It also held that opposition protected by W.Va. Code, 5-11-9(7)(C), includes opposition a worker reasonably and in good faith believes violates the Act, making the plaintiff's complaints protected activity and her retaliation claim viable, and it rejected the employer's 'Catch-22' and disincentive-to-hiring-women arguments. Both claims were remanded for factual development.

Holding

Whether a supervisory employee may maintain a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim against an employer under the West Virginia Human Rights Act for harassment committed by a subordinate employee.. Yes. A supervisor who is not a partner, owner, or part-owner is an employee protected by the Human Rights Act, and the Act imposes a duty on employers to ensure that workplaces are free of sexual harassment from whatever source; a per se rule barring recovery by supervisors is rejected.

What standard governs an employer's liability for a hostile work environment created by a subordinate or co-worker of a supervisory employee.. An employer is not strictly liable in all cases; where an agent or supervisor caused, contributed to, or acquiesced in the harassment, the conduct is attributed to the employer, but where the source is co-workers or subordinates and does not include management personnel, liability is determined by the employer's knowledge of the offending conduct, the effectiveness of its remedial procedures, and the adequacy of its response.

Whether complaints about a subordinate's sexual harassment constitute protected opposition under W.Va. Code, 5-11-9(7)(C), and what standard of belief governs a retaliation claim based on such opposition.. W.Va. Code, 5-11-9(7)(C), prohibits an employer or other person from retaliating against any individual for expressing opposition to a practice that he or she reasonably and in good faith believes violates the Human Rights Act; the plaintiff's complaints about Embrey were protected opposition, and because she was fired within a week of her last complaint, the obvious temporal proximity established a prima facie retaliation case.

Whether employers' asserted 'Catch-22' concerns or fears that such claims discourage hiring women supervisors justify barring supervisor harassment claims or furnish a legitimate reason for discharging a harassed supervisor.. No. There is no 'Catch-22' in requiring employers to adopt reasonable measures to prevent and remedy sexual harassment, including sexual harassment of supervisors; a supervisor's misfortune of being a target of sexual harassment does not provide her employer with a legitimate reason for discharging her, and the contention that such liability would discourage hiring women supervisors is rejected.

Irene Hanlon, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Terry Chambers

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by