Filter By Service Area
Filter By Title
Filter By Office

Resources

Prompt and Effective Remedial Action Can Still Save You From a Sex Harassment Claim

All HR professionals know that we must act quickly and effectively when presented with a claim of sex harassment. But it sometimes feels like we are likely to be found liable regardless of how quickly or effectively we act. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, (which is the Court of Appeals over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) has recently issued a ruling affirming the summary dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claims of sex harassment because of her employer’s prompt and effective response. 

The ruling in question was issued in Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (January 8, 2024).  The record contains some pretty damning facts against LSU.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, is an African-American female who worked at LSUHSC as an Administrative Coordinator in the Division of Animal Care. Ms. Johnson's desk was located in an open area connected to the offices of certain veterinarians, including Dr. Schumacher. 

Ms. Johnson introduced evidence that Dr. Schumacher slapped her on her buttocks (“the Incident”). Ms. Johnson also alleged that prior to the Incident Dr. Schumacher: (i) referred to her as “Boo”; (ii) looked down her blouse three or four times; (iii) talked about sex with African-American women with a coworker in Johnson's presence, including making a remark that “black women have big asses”; (iv) made daily comments about Johnson's appearance and perfume; and (v) suggested “getting together about five times.” (Like I said, pretty damning facts.)

Four days after the Incident Ms. Johnson informed her supervisor about the Incident.  Her supervisor immediately sent an email to HR, informing them.  Two days later Ms. Johnson’s supervisor asked her if she had heard from HR.  When she responded that she had not, he personally took Ms. Johson to speak with an HR representative.  The HR representative explained that since Ms. Johnson was staff and Dr. Schumacher was faculty, they had to wait for a specific Vice Chancellor to return from vacation to handle the complaint. 

Immediately following her conversation with HR, Ms. Johnson was temporarily relocated away from Dr. Schumacher.  For approximately four days she was moved to an office close to her supervisor, which was located in a different building from the group she worked with.  Then, she was relocated to a storage room in the building that housed the group she worked with.  Ms. Johson testified that the storage room was full of bugs, smelled and had windows covered with black paper.  (Stay with me people, LSU pulls this one out of the fire.)  When Ms. Johnson complained about the bugs and odor to her supervisor, he gave her six cans of bug spray, but did not move her.

The Vice Chancellor returned to work the day that Ms. Johnson was moved into the storage room. He investigated her claims for three weeks, and ultimately determined that they had merit.  Ms. Johnson was informed that she would be allowed to return to her original office and Dr. Schumacher was moved.   

A little over one year later, Ms. Johnson filed suit against LSU, alleging sex harassment, race discrimination and retaliatory harassment based upon the Incident, pre-incident conduct and her relocation to the storage closet, all in violation of Title VII.  (Does anyone think that moving her to a stinky, dark, bug-infested storage closet was not a bad idea?)

The Trial court dismissed all of Ms. Johnson’s claims on LSU’s motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision. 

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the Incident, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the facts that after learning of Johnson’s complaint about Dr. Schumacher, LSU took prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.  The Court stressed that Ms. Johnson first made her complaint on Thursday, and that LSU moved her so that she did not have to interact with Dr. Schumacher the following Monday.  The Court also noted that although it took LSU eleven days after Ms. Johnson’s complaint to HR to begin its investigation, LSU had a somewhat reasonable explanation for the delay, it did not have a history of similar complaints against Dr. Schumacher, it immediately separated Ms. Johnson and Dr. Schumacher, and its belated investigation was adequate. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the pre-Incident conduct, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the fact that Ms. Johnson failed to report Dr. Schumacher’s pre-Incident conduct to any supervisor or HR, and that LSU had no other reasons to know of his conduct.

Last, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit stressed that LSU proved a legitimate reason for moving Ms. Johnson to the storage room, to separate her from Dr. Schumacher, and that Ms. Johnson did not present any evidence that this reason proffered by LSU was a pretext.  LSU introduced evidence that office space was limited and that Ms. Johnson needed to be near her group, and Ms. Johnson did not contradict either fact.

As you can see, LSU’s response was far from perfect, and a slightly different twist on one or two facts could well have led to a different outcome.  But the overall finding is encouraging: even when faced with egregious employee conduct, an employer can still avoid liability by acting promptly and effectively.  Although we may disagree on the promptness of LSU’s response, it was effective.  After her first complaint, Dr. Schumacher did not harass her again.

Prompt and Effective Remedial Action Can Still Save You From a Sex Harassment Claim

All HR professionals know that we must act quickly and effectively when presented with a claim of sex harassment. But it sometimes feels like we are likely to be found liable regardless of how quickly or effectively we act. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, (which is the Court of Appeals over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) has recently issued a ruling affirming the summary dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claims of sex harassment because of her employer’s prompt and effective response. 

The ruling in question was issued in Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (January 8, 2024).  The record contains some pretty damning facts against LSU.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, is an African-American female who worked at LSUHSC as an Administrative Coordinator in the Division of Animal Care. Ms. Johnson's desk was located in an open area connected to the offices of certain veterinarians, including Dr. Schumacher. 

Ms. Johnson introduced evidence that Dr. Schumacher slapped her on her buttocks (“the Incident”). Ms. Johnson also alleged that prior to the Incident Dr. Schumacher: (i) referred to her as “Boo”; (ii) looked down her blouse three or four times; (iii) talked about sex with African-American women with a coworker in Johnson's presence, including making a remark that “black women have big asses”; (iv) made daily comments about Johnson's appearance and perfume; and (v) suggested “getting together about five times.” (Like I said, pretty damning facts.)

Four days after the Incident Ms. Johnson informed her supervisor about the Incident.  Her supervisor immediately sent an email to HR, informing them.  Two days later Ms. Johnson’s supervisor asked her if she had heard from HR.  When she responded that she had not, he personally took Ms. Johson to speak with an HR representative.  The HR representative explained that since Ms. Johnson was staff and Dr. Schumacher was faculty, they had to wait for a specific Vice Chancellor to return from vacation to handle the complaint. 

Immediately following her conversation with HR, Ms. Johnson was temporarily relocated away from Dr. Schumacher.  For approximately four days she was moved to an office close to her supervisor, which was located in a different building from the group she worked with.  Then, she was relocated to a storage room in the building that housed the group she worked with.  Ms. Johson testified that the storage room was full of bugs, smelled and had windows covered with black paper.  (Stay with me people, LSU pulls this one out of the fire.)  When Ms. Johnson complained about the bugs and odor to her supervisor, he gave her six cans of bug spray, but did not move her.

The Vice Chancellor returned to work the day that Ms. Johnson was moved into the storage room. He investigated her claims for three weeks, and ultimately determined that they had merit.  Ms. Johnson was informed that she would be allowed to return to her original office and Dr. Schumacher was moved.   

A little over one year later, Ms. Johnson filed suit against LSU, alleging sex harassment, race discrimination and retaliatory harassment based upon the Incident, pre-incident conduct and her relocation to the storage closet, all in violation of Title VII.  (Does anyone think that moving her to a stinky, dark, bug-infested storage closet was not a bad idea?)

The Trial court dismissed all of Ms. Johnson’s claims on LSU’s motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision. 

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the Incident, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the facts that after learning of Johnson’s complaint about Dr. Schumacher, LSU took prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.  The Court stressed that Ms. Johnson first made her complaint on Thursday, and that LSU moved her so that she did not have to interact with Dr. Schumacher the following Monday.  The Court also noted that although it took LSU eleven days after Ms. Johnson’s complaint to HR to begin its investigation, LSU had a somewhat reasonable explanation for the delay, it did not have a history of similar complaints against Dr. Schumacher, it immediately separated Ms. Johnson and Dr. Schumacher, and its belated investigation was adequate. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the pre-Incident conduct, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the fact that Ms. Johnson failed to report Dr. Schumacher’s pre-Incident conduct to any supervisor or HR, and that LSU had no other reasons to know of his conduct.

Last, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit stressed that LSU proved a legitimate reason for moving Ms. Johnson to the storage room, to separate her from Dr. Schumacher, and that Ms. Johnson did not present any evidence that this reason proffered by LSU was a pretext.  LSU introduced evidence that office space was limited and that Ms. Johnson needed to be near her group, and Ms. Johnson did not contradict either fact.

As you can see, LSU’s response was far from perfect, and a slightly different twist on one or two facts could well have led to a different outcome.  But the overall finding is encouraging: even when faced with egregious employee conduct, an employer can still avoid liability by acting promptly and effectively.  Although we may disagree on the promptness of LSU’s response, it was effective.  After her first complaint, Dr. Schumacher did not harass her again.

Prompt and Effective Remedial Action Can Still Save You From a Sex Harassment Claim

All HR professionals know that we must act quickly and effectively when presented with a claim of sex harassment. But it sometimes feels like we are likely to be found liable regardless of how quickly or effectively we act. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, (which is the Court of Appeals over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) has recently issued a ruling affirming the summary dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claims of sex harassment because of her employer’s prompt and effective response. 

The ruling in question was issued in Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (January 8, 2024).  The record contains some pretty damning facts against LSU.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, is an African-American female who worked at LSUHSC as an Administrative Coordinator in the Division of Animal Care. Ms. Johnson's desk was located in an open area connected to the offices of certain veterinarians, including Dr. Schumacher. 

Ms. Johnson introduced evidence that Dr. Schumacher slapped her on her buttocks (“the Incident”). Ms. Johnson also alleged that prior to the Incident Dr. Schumacher: (i) referred to her as “Boo”; (ii) looked down her blouse three or four times; (iii) talked about sex with African-American women with a coworker in Johnson's presence, including making a remark that “black women have big asses”; (iv) made daily comments about Johnson's appearance and perfume; and (v) suggested “getting together about five times.” (Like I said, pretty damning facts.)

Four days after the Incident Ms. Johnson informed her supervisor about the Incident.  Her supervisor immediately sent an email to HR, informing them.  Two days later Ms. Johnson’s supervisor asked her if she had heard from HR.  When she responded that she had not, he personally took Ms. Johson to speak with an HR representative.  The HR representative explained that since Ms. Johnson was staff and Dr. Schumacher was faculty, they had to wait for a specific Vice Chancellor to return from vacation to handle the complaint. 

Immediately following her conversation with HR, Ms. Johnson was temporarily relocated away from Dr. Schumacher.  For approximately four days she was moved to an office close to her supervisor, which was located in a different building from the group she worked with.  Then, she was relocated to a storage room in the building that housed the group she worked with.  Ms. Johson testified that the storage room was full of bugs, smelled and had windows covered with black paper.  (Stay with me people, LSU pulls this one out of the fire.)  When Ms. Johnson complained about the bugs and odor to her supervisor, he gave her six cans of bug spray, but did not move her.

The Vice Chancellor returned to work the day that Ms. Johnson was moved into the storage room. He investigated her claims for three weeks, and ultimately determined that they had merit.  Ms. Johnson was informed that she would be allowed to return to her original office and Dr. Schumacher was moved.   

A little over one year later, Ms. Johnson filed suit against LSU, alleging sex harassment, race discrimination and retaliatory harassment based upon the Incident, pre-incident conduct and her relocation to the storage closet, all in violation of Title VII.  (Does anyone think that moving her to a stinky, dark, bug-infested storage closet was not a bad idea?)

The Trial court dismissed all of Ms. Johnson’s claims on LSU’s motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision. 

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the Incident, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the facts that after learning of Johnson’s complaint about Dr. Schumacher, LSU took prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.  The Court stressed that Ms. Johnson first made her complaint on Thursday, and that LSU moved her so that she did not have to interact with Dr. Schumacher the following Monday.  The Court also noted that although it took LSU eleven days after Ms. Johnson’s complaint to HR to begin its investigation, LSU had a somewhat reasonable explanation for the delay, it did not have a history of similar complaints against Dr. Schumacher, it immediately separated Ms. Johnson and Dr. Schumacher, and its belated investigation was adequate. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the pre-Incident conduct, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the fact that Ms. Johnson failed to report Dr. Schumacher’s pre-Incident conduct to any supervisor or HR, and that LSU had no other reasons to know of his conduct.

Last, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit stressed that LSU proved a legitimate reason for moving Ms. Johnson to the storage room, to separate her from Dr. Schumacher, and that Ms. Johnson did not present any evidence that this reason proffered by LSU was a pretext.  LSU introduced evidence that office space was limited and that Ms. Johnson needed to be near her group, and Ms. Johnson did not contradict either fact.

As you can see, LSU’s response was far from perfect, and a slightly different twist on one or two facts could well have led to a different outcome.  But the overall finding is encouraging: even when faced with egregious employee conduct, an employer can still avoid liability by acting promptly and effectively.  Although we may disagree on the promptness of LSU’s response, it was effective.  After her first complaint, Dr. Schumacher did not harass her again.

Prompt and Effective Remedial Action Can Still Save You From a Sex Harassment Claim

All HR professionals know that we must act quickly and effectively when presented with a claim of sex harassment. But it sometimes feels like we are likely to be found liable regardless of how quickly or effectively we act. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, (which is the Court of Appeals over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) has recently issued a ruling affirming the summary dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claims of sex harassment because of her employer’s prompt and effective response. 

The ruling in question was issued in Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (January 8, 2024).  The record contains some pretty damning facts against LSU.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, is an African-American female who worked at LSUHSC as an Administrative Coordinator in the Division of Animal Care. Ms. Johnson's desk was located in an open area connected to the offices of certain veterinarians, including Dr. Schumacher. 

Ms. Johnson introduced evidence that Dr. Schumacher slapped her on her buttocks (“the Incident”). Ms. Johnson also alleged that prior to the Incident Dr. Schumacher: (i) referred to her as “Boo”; (ii) looked down her blouse three or four times; (iii) talked about sex with African-American women with a coworker in Johnson's presence, including making a remark that “black women have big asses”; (iv) made daily comments about Johnson's appearance and perfume; and (v) suggested “getting together about five times.” (Like I said, pretty damning facts.)

Four days after the Incident Ms. Johnson informed her supervisor about the Incident.  Her supervisor immediately sent an email to HR, informing them.  Two days later Ms. Johnson’s supervisor asked her if she had heard from HR.  When she responded that she had not, he personally took Ms. Johson to speak with an HR representative.  The HR representative explained that since Ms. Johnson was staff and Dr. Schumacher was faculty, they had to wait for a specific Vice Chancellor to return from vacation to handle the complaint. 

Immediately following her conversation with HR, Ms. Johnson was temporarily relocated away from Dr. Schumacher.  For approximately four days she was moved to an office close to her supervisor, which was located in a different building from the group she worked with.  Then, she was relocated to a storage room in the building that housed the group she worked with.  Ms. Johson testified that the storage room was full of bugs, smelled and had windows covered with black paper.  (Stay with me people, LSU pulls this one out of the fire.)  When Ms. Johnson complained about the bugs and odor to her supervisor, he gave her six cans of bug spray, but did not move her.

The Vice Chancellor returned to work the day that Ms. Johnson was moved into the storage room. He investigated her claims for three weeks, and ultimately determined that they had merit.  Ms. Johnson was informed that she would be allowed to return to her original office and Dr. Schumacher was moved.   

A little over one year later, Ms. Johnson filed suit against LSU, alleging sex harassment, race discrimination and retaliatory harassment based upon the Incident, pre-incident conduct and her relocation to the storage closet, all in violation of Title VII.  (Does anyone think that moving her to a stinky, dark, bug-infested storage closet was not a bad idea?)

The Trial court dismissed all of Ms. Johnson’s claims on LSU’s motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision. 

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the Incident, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the facts that after learning of Johnson’s complaint about Dr. Schumacher, LSU took prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.  The Court stressed that Ms. Johnson first made her complaint on Thursday, and that LSU moved her so that she did not have to interact with Dr. Schumacher the following Monday.  The Court also noted that although it took LSU eleven days after Ms. Johnson’s complaint to HR to begin its investigation, LSU had a somewhat reasonable explanation for the delay, it did not have a history of similar complaints against Dr. Schumacher, it immediately separated Ms. Johnson and Dr. Schumacher, and its belated investigation was adequate. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the pre-Incident conduct, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the fact that Ms. Johnson failed to report Dr. Schumacher’s pre-Incident conduct to any supervisor or HR, and that LSU had no other reasons to know of his conduct.

Last, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit stressed that LSU proved a legitimate reason for moving Ms. Johnson to the storage room, to separate her from Dr. Schumacher, and that Ms. Johnson did not present any evidence that this reason proffered by LSU was a pretext.  LSU introduced evidence that office space was limited and that Ms. Johnson needed to be near her group, and Ms. Johnson did not contradict either fact.

As you can see, LSU’s response was far from perfect, and a slightly different twist on one or two facts could well have led to a different outcome.  But the overall finding is encouraging: even when faced with egregious employee conduct, an employer can still avoid liability by acting promptly and effectively.  Although we may disagree on the promptness of LSU’s response, it was effective.  After her first complaint, Dr. Schumacher did not harass her again.

Prompt and Effective Remedial Action Can Still Save You From a Sex Harassment Claim

All HR professionals know that we must act quickly and effectively when presented with a claim of sex harassment. But it sometimes feels like we are likely to be found liable regardless of how quickly or effectively we act. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, (which is the Court of Appeals over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) has recently issued a ruling affirming the summary dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claims of sex harassment because of her employer’s prompt and effective response. 

The ruling in question was issued in Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (January 8, 2024).  The record contains some pretty damning facts against LSU.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, is an African-American female who worked at LSUHSC as an Administrative Coordinator in the Division of Animal Care. Ms. Johnson's desk was located in an open area connected to the offices of certain veterinarians, including Dr. Schumacher. 

Ms. Johnson introduced evidence that Dr. Schumacher slapped her on her buttocks (“the Incident”). Ms. Johnson also alleged that prior to the Incident Dr. Schumacher: (i) referred to her as “Boo”; (ii) looked down her blouse three or four times; (iii) talked about sex with African-American women with a coworker in Johnson's presence, including making a remark that “black women have big asses”; (iv) made daily comments about Johnson's appearance and perfume; and (v) suggested “getting together about five times.” (Like I said, pretty damning facts.)

Four days after the Incident Ms. Johnson informed her supervisor about the Incident.  Her supervisor immediately sent an email to HR, informing them.  Two days later Ms. Johnson’s supervisor asked her if she had heard from HR.  When she responded that she had not, he personally took Ms. Johson to speak with an HR representative.  The HR representative explained that since Ms. Johnson was staff and Dr. Schumacher was faculty, they had to wait for a specific Vice Chancellor to return from vacation to handle the complaint. 

Immediately following her conversation with HR, Ms. Johnson was temporarily relocated away from Dr. Schumacher.  For approximately four days she was moved to an office close to her supervisor, which was located in a different building from the group she worked with.  Then, she was relocated to a storage room in the building that housed the group she worked with.  Ms. Johson testified that the storage room was full of bugs, smelled and had windows covered with black paper.  (Stay with me people, LSU pulls this one out of the fire.)  When Ms. Johnson complained about the bugs and odor to her supervisor, he gave her six cans of bug spray, but did not move her.

The Vice Chancellor returned to work the day that Ms. Johnson was moved into the storage room. He investigated her claims for three weeks, and ultimately determined that they had merit.  Ms. Johnson was informed that she would be allowed to return to her original office and Dr. Schumacher was moved.   

A little over one year later, Ms. Johnson filed suit against LSU, alleging sex harassment, race discrimination and retaliatory harassment based upon the Incident, pre-incident conduct and her relocation to the storage closet, all in violation of Title VII.  (Does anyone think that moving her to a stinky, dark, bug-infested storage closet was not a bad idea?)

The Trial court dismissed all of Ms. Johnson’s claims on LSU’s motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision. 

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the Incident, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the facts that after learning of Johnson’s complaint about Dr. Schumacher, LSU took prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.  The Court stressed that Ms. Johnson first made her complaint on Thursday, and that LSU moved her so that she did not have to interact with Dr. Schumacher the following Monday.  The Court also noted that although it took LSU eleven days after Ms. Johnson’s complaint to HR to begin its investigation, LSU had a somewhat reasonable explanation for the delay, it did not have a history of similar complaints against Dr. Schumacher, it immediately separated Ms. Johnson and Dr. Schumacher, and its belated investigation was adequate. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the pre-Incident conduct, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the fact that Ms. Johnson failed to report Dr. Schumacher’s pre-Incident conduct to any supervisor or HR, and that LSU had no other reasons to know of his conduct.

Last, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit stressed that LSU proved a legitimate reason for moving Ms. Johnson to the storage room, to separate her from Dr. Schumacher, and that Ms. Johnson did not present any evidence that this reason proffered by LSU was a pretext.  LSU introduced evidence that office space was limited and that Ms. Johnson needed to be near her group, and Ms. Johnson did not contradict either fact.

As you can see, LSU’s response was far from perfect, and a slightly different twist on one or two facts could well have led to a different outcome.  But the overall finding is encouraging: even when faced with egregious employee conduct, an employer can still avoid liability by acting promptly and effectively.  Although we may disagree on the promptness of LSU’s response, it was effective.  After her first complaint, Dr. Schumacher did not harass her again.

Prompt and Effective Remedial Action Can Still Save You From a Sex Harassment Claim

All HR professionals know that we must act quickly and effectively when presented with a claim of sex harassment. But it sometimes feels like we are likely to be found liable regardless of how quickly or effectively we act. Well, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, (which is the Court of Appeals over Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) has recently issued a ruling affirming the summary dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claims of sex harassment because of her employer’s prompt and effective response. 

The ruling in question was issued in Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (January 8, 2024).  The record contains some pretty damning facts against LSU.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson, is an African-American female who worked at LSUHSC as an Administrative Coordinator in the Division of Animal Care. Ms. Johnson's desk was located in an open area connected to the offices of certain veterinarians, including Dr. Schumacher. 

Ms. Johnson introduced evidence that Dr. Schumacher slapped her on her buttocks (“the Incident”). Ms. Johnson also alleged that prior to the Incident Dr. Schumacher: (i) referred to her as “Boo”; (ii) looked down her blouse three or four times; (iii) talked about sex with African-American women with a coworker in Johnson's presence, including making a remark that “black women have big asses”; (iv) made daily comments about Johnson's appearance and perfume; and (v) suggested “getting together about five times.” (Like I said, pretty damning facts.)

Four days after the Incident Ms. Johnson informed her supervisor about the Incident.  Her supervisor immediately sent an email to HR, informing them.  Two days later Ms. Johnson’s supervisor asked her if she had heard from HR.  When she responded that she had not, he personally took Ms. Johson to speak with an HR representative.  The HR representative explained that since Ms. Johnson was staff and Dr. Schumacher was faculty, they had to wait for a specific Vice Chancellor to return from vacation to handle the complaint. 

Immediately following her conversation with HR, Ms. Johnson was temporarily relocated away from Dr. Schumacher.  For approximately four days she was moved to an office close to her supervisor, which was located in a different building from the group she worked with.  Then, she was relocated to a storage room in the building that housed the group she worked with.  Ms. Johson testified that the storage room was full of bugs, smelled and had windows covered with black paper.  (Stay with me people, LSU pulls this one out of the fire.)  When Ms. Johnson complained about the bugs and odor to her supervisor, he gave her six cans of bug spray, but did not move her.

The Vice Chancellor returned to work the day that Ms. Johnson was moved into the storage room. He investigated her claims for three weeks, and ultimately determined that they had merit.  Ms. Johnson was informed that she would be allowed to return to her original office and Dr. Schumacher was moved.   

A little over one year later, Ms. Johnson filed suit against LSU, alleging sex harassment, race discrimination and retaliatory harassment based upon the Incident, pre-incident conduct and her relocation to the storage closet, all in violation of Title VII.  (Does anyone think that moving her to a stinky, dark, bug-infested storage closet was not a bad idea?)

The Trial court dismissed all of Ms. Johnson’s claims on LSU’s motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision. 

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the Incident, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the facts that after learning of Johnson’s complaint about Dr. Schumacher, LSU took prompt remedial action that was reasonably calculated to end the harassment.  The Court stressed that Ms. Johnson first made her complaint on Thursday, and that LSU moved her so that she did not have to interact with Dr. Schumacher the following Monday.  The Court also noted that although it took LSU eleven days after Ms. Johnson’s complaint to HR to begin its investigation, LSU had a somewhat reasonable explanation for the delay, it did not have a history of similar complaints against Dr. Schumacher, it immediately separated Ms. Johnson and Dr. Schumacher, and its belated investigation was adequate. 

In affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Johnson’s sex harassment claim related to the pre-Incident conduct, the Fifth Circuit relied upon the fact that Ms. Johnson failed to report Dr. Schumacher’s pre-Incident conduct to any supervisor or HR, and that LSU had no other reasons to know of his conduct.

Last, in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Johnson’s retaliation claim, the Fifth Circuit stressed that LSU proved a legitimate reason for moving Ms. Johnson to the storage room, to separate her from Dr. Schumacher, and that Ms. Johnson did not present any evidence that this reason proffered by LSU was a pretext.  LSU introduced evidence that office space was limited and that Ms. Johnson needed to be near her group, and Ms. Johnson did not contradict either fact.

As you can see, LSU’s response was far from perfect, and a slightly different twist on one or two facts could well have led to a different outcome.  But the overall finding is encouraging: even when faced with egregious employee conduct, an employer can still avoid liability by acting promptly and effectively.  Although we may disagree on the promptness of LSU’s response, it was effective.  After her first complaint, Dr. Schumacher did not harass her again.