Federal District Court Judge Declares Employers a ruling are not Liable for a former employee Racial Harassment and Reprisal case in Northern District Court in Clarksburg West Virginia the Judge Dismiss the Case thru Summary Judgement. 

Fourth Circuit: Employers Can Be Liable for Third-Party Harassment of Employees 
May 29th, 2014 · 

A federal appeals court ruled that employers may be held liable for sexual and racial harassment of their employees by third parties such as suppliers or customers. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit adopted a negligence standard for finding companies liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, echoing an earlier non-precedential opinion and following the example of several sister circuits.

“[A]n employer cannot avoid Title VII liability for [third-party] harassment by adopting a ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ strategy,” a three-judge panel said in Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp. Companies will be held to account, the panel said, if they knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt action. 

The Fourth Circuit’s decision solidifies an emerging judicial consensus that companies can’t turn a blind eye to harassment in the workplace, whatever its source. Similar Title VII opinions have come from the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, the court noted. 

The latest holding allows the harassment claims of Lori Freeman to move toward trial. Ms. Freeman, who is African American, alleges that her former employer Dal-Tile, a maker of ceramic tiles, created a hostile work environment by refusing to address her complaints about offensive behavior by Timothy Koester, an employee of a Dal-Tile reseller. 

Ms. Freeman dealt with Mr. Koester daily, and says he boasted lewdly of his sexual activity and often made racially and sexually derogatory comments — referring to her and other Dal-Tile employees as “b****es” and “black b****es,” for example. 

Ms. Freeman says she asked Mr. Koester to stop “two or three times a week,” and complained frequently to her supervisor, who mostly told her to ignore the behavior. Ms. Freeman says she also reported the harassment to Dal-Tile’s human resources department and to the co-owner of Mr. Koester’s company. Mr. Koester was briefly banned from Dal-Tile’s office, but the ban was lifted. 

Ms. Freeman sought medical treatment for depression and anxiety. She ultimately resigned, she says, because of her constant worry about meeting Mr. Koester. 

Ms. Freeman brought suit against Dal-Tile alleging sexual and racial harassment, among other things, but a federal district court in North Carolina granted summary judgment against her. Even if she could prove there was a hostile work environment, that court held, she couldn’t establish that Dal-Tile was legally responsible for Mr. Koester’s actions. 

The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that a reasonable jury could find that Dal-Tile had actual knowledge of the harassment; knew it was ongoing and severe; and did not take reasonable action against it. It remanded Ms. Freeman’s hostile work environment claims to the trial court for further action.