978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-11-06 Part 1

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

E.D.Ky.,2012.

Bradford v. Department of Community Based Services, Kentucky

brings this complaint began.

was wearing a “wide-tailed skirt, she would prop her legs up and wad [the skirt] up and put it down between her legs

… [revealing] her panties.” (Id.). In response to this conduct, Bradford would tell Stander that “God don’t like ugly .”

(Id. at 55).

Also on a daily basis, while in Bradford’s officer, Stander would “put her hands up under her shirt and rub her

ently in her conversations with coworkers. (Id. at 66). Stander routinely described other coworkers to Bradford in a

sexual manner, often commenting on their “behinds.” (Id. at 64). Once or twice a week, Stander described her

coworker, Diana Garrett’s, bottom as “bootylicious.” (Garrett Dep. 38). On one occasion, Bradford observed Stander

walking behind Garrett, stating “ooh, bootylicious, hmm, hmm, hmm, [while] wiggling her hips working her hands

… like she’s massaging [Garrett’s] behind.” (Doc. # 47, at 118). Stander also described another coworker’s behind as

coworker and said, “I’ve been to your house and made love to you [too],” causing the coworker to turn red in the

face. (Id.).

In February or March of 2008, Stander brought four of five jars of Vaseline to a team meeting that Bradford at-

tended. (Compl.¶ 28). On each of the jars, Stander had placed a label that said, “Team Topical Treatment.” (Id.).

Stander said, “When [the supervisor] is riding your ass and it is chapped, you can use this to grease it up.” (Id.).

Stander, who was standing in the hallway, yell out to another coworker. Bradford looked out her office doorway and

saw Stander pull down her pants and expose her naked backside to the approaching coworker. Expressing her disap-

proval, Bradford exclaimed, “Lisa, no you didn’t.” (Id. at 107). In a grievance filed with DCBS, the victimized

coworker explained that she felt “not only embarrassed but disrespected and awkward, in a word, offended” by

Stander’s conduct. (Pl.Ex. 7 at 001200). Bradford also filed a grievance with DCBS after this incident requesting

May 2007. In fact, on a daily basis beginning in May 2007, Bradford told Stander that “God don’t like ugly” in re-

sponse to Stander‘s crude behavior. (Doc. # 47, at 55). Coworkers heard Bradford make this comment to Stander so

much that it “became a thing around the office.” (Id .). Lorraine Webster testified that she heard Bradford make the

comment “quite frequently … [a]nd usually when [Bradford] would say that, my assumption was it was something

that [Stander] said that [Bradford] didn’t appreciate.” (Webster Dep. 38).

Bradford was not the only employee to make informal, verbal complaints about Stander’s conduct. After hearing

Stander say that a coworker made her “get [ ] wet in her pants because she looked so good” in front of other em-

ployees and clients, Lorraine Webster approached Angie Taylor to discuss Stander’s behavior. (Webster Dep. 23).

Webster informed Taylor that Stander’s behavior made employees uncomfortable and also made it more difficult for

the employees to meet with clients in the office. (Id. at 24). However, Taylor “basically told [Webster] that they

on notice of Stander‘s conduct. Likewise, Patti Murphy, another upper-level official of DCBS, affirmed that Brad–

ford sufficiently brought Stander’s offensive conduct to Taylor’s attention. On one occasion, Taylor and Bradford

simultaneously witnessed Stander with her hands down her pants and up her shirt. Bradford then asked Taylor

whether she saw Stander’s conduct. Murphy acknowledged that by pointing out Stander‘s conduct to Taylor, Brad-

ford sufficiently complied with the reporting requirements of DCBS’s anti-sexual harassment policy.

ford filed an official grievance. On May 27, 2008, Bradford filed a grievance against Stander because Stander “

‘mooned’ a fellow employee in [Bradford’s] presence.” (Pl.Ex.24, 00196). Bradford’s grievance also stated, that

“[she has] come to [Taylor] on a number of occasions, in confidence, with [her] concerns about the conducts of Ms.

Stander, to no avail.” (Id.). While Angie Taylor responded that “at no time have you come to me with any concerns

of this magnitude or this type,” (Pl.Ex.24, 00204) Stander was ultimately suspended for some time because of the

tember 23, 2009, the EEOC notified Bradford that, based upon its investigation, the EEOC was unable to conclude

that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was violated by DCBS. However the EEOC also gave Bradford a notice of

right to sue.

davits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence

and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

349 (6th Cir.1998).

B. Hostile Work Environment Claims

Defendant moves for summary judgment on both of Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, the first arising

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2 et seq., and the second under the Kentucky’s

(2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment,

(3) the harassment was based on her sex,

(4) the harassment created a hostile work environment, and that

(5) the employer is vicariously liable.

Id. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to plead or prove facts sufficient to establish elements (2)

reasonably find such discrimination, for example, if a female victim is harassed in such sex-specific and derogatory

terms by another woman as to make it clear that the harasser is motivated by general hostility to the presence of

women in the workplace.” Id.

a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harasee can shed light on ... whether the com-

plained-of conduct was unwelcome….” Ammons–Lewis v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 488

F.3d 739, 746–47 (7th Cir.2007). However, a relationship, be it a friendship or a consensual sexual relationship,

between the plaintiff and the alleged harasser “is by no means dispositive of the sexual–harassment claim.” Turner v.

The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679, 686 (7th Cir.2010) (quoting Ammons–Lewis, 488 F.3d at 746–47).

to conclude that Stander‘s conduct was unwelcome.

Defendant argues, to no avail, that Plaintiff’s expression, “God don’t like ugly,” does not indicate that Stander’s

behavior was unwelcome. Instead, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff routinely made the comment as a joking response

to Stander’s conduct. Mr. Tim Rees, a coworker of Plaintiff, recalls Plaintiff saying “God don’t like ugly all the

whether Stander’s conduct was unwelcome.

1. Plaintiff’s Friendship with Stander

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s friendship with Stander belies Plaintiff’s claim that Stander’s behavior was

unwelcome. Defendant cites several cases for the proposition that courts are reluctant to find that alleged harassment

534–55; Shepherd, 168 F.3d at 872; Christian, 45 F.3d at *1.

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s alleged friendship with Stander may cast doubt on whether Stander’s be-

havior was unwelcome. However, genuine issues of material fact exist about the friendship, such as its nature and

duration, precluding judgment in favor of Defendant on this element of the Title VII claim. While Defendant cites

deposition testimony that suggests Plaintiff and Stander remained friends throughout the time period at issue, Plain-