EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., L.L.C - 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013)

Rule:

Where a sexual harassment claim arises out of a supervisor's conduct, there are four elements of a hostile working environment claim: (1) that the employee belongs to a protected class; (2) that the employee was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on a protected characteristic; and (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. To affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, the harassing conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. Courts use an objective reasonable person standard to evaluate severity and pervasiveness. Ultimately, whether an environment is hostile or abusive depends on the totality of circumstances.

Facts:

Kerry Woods, an iron worker on Chuck Wolfe’s crew, had become a specific and frequent target of Wolfe’s abuse because Wolfe thought that Woods was not manly enough. Wolfe would often call Woods sex-based epithets and would mock him with sexualized acts. After complaining about Wolfe’s behavior, Woods was later laid off. Woods then filed an EEOOC charge of discrimination, alleging sexual harassment, and on the basis of his November 2006 removal from the maintenance crew, retaliation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought the enforcement action on Wood’s behalf, claiming sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Woods on the harassment claim and in favor of the employer on the retaliation claim. The jury awarded Woods $201,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. The district court reduced the compensatory damages award to $50,000 to comply with the $300,000 statutory damages cap. The employer filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law following entry of judgment and a motion for new trial, both of which the court denied. The employer appealed.  

Issue:

1. Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding in favor of Woods on the harassment claim?  
   
   
2. Under the circumstances, was the award of punitive damages in favor of Woods proper?  

Answer:

1. Yes. 2. No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of harassment "because of sex" that was severe and pervasive under Title VII because of Wolfe’s act of taunting Woods several times a day due to Wolfe’s belief that Woods was not manly enough. However, the court held that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law overturning the jury's punitive damages award because the uncontroverted evidence showed that the employer did not subjectively perceive a risk of violation of federal law regarding same-sex harassment.