In Burnett v. Ashley Furniture Indus., No. 3:24-CV293-MPM-JMV, 2026 WL 1534469 (N.D. Miss. June 1, 2026), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Here, the alleged harassment in this case involved an incident in which the person responsible for overseeing the training line to which plaintiff was assigned told her that her “body was flirting with him” and thereafter approached her from behind and touched her buttocks. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that the unwanted touching lasted for a period of time which she described as being “somewhat quick” but still “a good little minute,” though she was unable to give a precise estimate of its duration.
This case is instructive in so-called “single incident” sexual harassment cases.
From the decision:
In light of the foregoing, this court believes that it is implicit within the Faragher-Ellerth framework that a single act of harassment may suffice to support a Title VII claim by a supervisor. This court regards this as entirely appropriate, since individuals who have been entrusted to serve as supervisors should know better than to abuse their authority by seeking sexual favors from those under their command. This court frankly has little sympathy for those supervisors who choose to do so anyway. In a similar vein, this court believes that Faragher-Ellerth quite properly incentivizes employers to take sufficient care in hiring and training their supervisors to ensure that they do not commit acts of sexual harassment in the first place. Indeed, in cases where employees act properly in taking advantage of the reporting procedures available to them, this court can discern no unfairness in holding employers vicariously liable for the harm inflicted by their supervisors.
These legal considerations aside, this court believes that, on a human level, adopting a “one free grope” rule would serve to diminish the real-life consequences of even a single groping by a supervisor and would be insulting to employees who simply wish to be judged on their merits. In so stating, this court emphasizes that virtually all individuals enter an employment relationship with the expectation that they will be treated with respect and dignity and that they will be judged by their supervisors based on their work performance. That all goes out the window once an employee is subjected to the sort of physical groping by a supervisor, with clear sexual intent, which plaintiff alleges occurred in this case. Once that occurs, the employee is suddenly aware that she is viewed by her supervisor as a sexual object, and she must wonder whether her rejection of his advances will prevent further such incidents or whether she will be subjected to some form of retaliation for rejecting his advances. Such an employee will likewise face concerns regarding whether she should “make waves” by reporting the harassment to her employer, and whether her career path might be jeopardized by doing so.
Under these circumstances, it is unclear to this court why even a single groping by a supervisor, with clear sexual intent, should be regarded as insufficient, as a matter of law, to support recovery under Title VII. To those who disagree, this court must ask: would you be content to have your paycheck and your career threatened by the sexual appetites of your supervisor? This court submits that virtually everyone would answer “no” to this question, and, that being the case, it does not believe that one should be so hasty to diminish the significance of even a single sexual advance, including unwanted physical touching, by a supervisor. Because ultimately, the severity of such misconduct lies not only in the physical revulsion resulting from an unwanted touching of private body parts (real though that may be), but also the victim’s awareness of the threat that such conduct poses to her ability to make a living. And while the unwanted touching itself may have only lasted for seconds, the distress and worry caused to a completely innocent employee will, inevitably, last much longer. This court submits that this is the context in which one should evaluate the “severity” of even a single incident of an unwanted sexual advance and touching by a supervisor.
Accordingly, the court held that the case will proceed.