Employee Successfully Defeats Employer’s Summary Judgment on Quid Pro Quo Claim

In this case, the employee secured her position with the employer through the assistance of a friend's husband, and after she was hired, the man became her supervisor. After she was hired, she claimed he started to sexually harass her. Specifically, she claimed that he put his arms around her shoulders and kissed the side of her face; put his arm around her shoulders on another occasion; and that he asked her to remove a hair from his chin with tweezers and kissed her. On each occasion, she claimed she was uncomfortable and tried to refuse, but he repeatedly told her not to complain and that he could get her fired. The employee complained to her supervisor's supervisor, who said she would be in touch to discuss further, but no such communications took place. Thereafter, the supervisor and a manager expressed concern about the employee's job performance, appearance, and tardiness. The supervisor's supervisor directed them to terminate the employee's employment.

The employee filed suit for sex discrimination and age discrimination, and the employer moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion in part, but did not dismiss the sexual harassment claim. The employer then successfully sought summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, and the employee appealed.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals first agreed with the district court that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish severe or pervasive harassment, even though it was "inappropriate." The court did, however, agree with the employee with respect to her quid pro quo claim, finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to generate a genuine issue of fact in that she claims she was terminated for refusing to cooperate with her supervisor's attempts to engage her sexually. The district court had previously concluded that the quid pro quo claim was not "based on sex" in that the incident involving the ingrown hair was asexual, but the appellate court disagreed. Specifically, the Eighth Circuit found that a jury could reasonably conclude that the supervisor requested grooming assistance in order to bring the employee close to him in exchange for protecting her job, and that he placed her in a position in which he kissed and touched her while assuring her nothing would happen to her on the job. The Eighth Circuit accordingly reversed the district court on the quid pro quo claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Taking employees' claims of sexual harassment seriously and undertaking prompt and thorough investigations are of paramount importance and could make a significant difference in whether liability is imposed against an employer. For more information read about McMiller v. Metro, No. 12-3536 (8^th Cir. December 26, 2013).