In Byars v. Asbury Management Services, LLC, 2022 WL 468598 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 15, 2022), the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In sum, plaintiff alleged, among other things, that her coworker (Massey) sexually harassed her and created an “offensive and sexually hostile working environment,” and that defendant’s management did not act to prevent the sexual misconduct.
From the decision:
First, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the alleged harassment was unwelcome. Although Asbury characterizes the texts between Byars and Massey as welcoming sexual conversation, these texts do not compel the conclusion that any sexual harassment was welcomed. See Text Messages [98-10]. Byars also cites to several instances in the record to refute that sentiment. See [103] at 32–34. The Court may not weigh evidence now, and thus cannot grant summary judgment.
And the Court does not find proof by clear and convincing evidence that Byars committed sanctionable false swearing or perjury. Perjury is the false testimony under oath “concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993) (citation omitted). When used in a criminal or punitive sense, “willful” denotes an act “done with bad purpose”—that is, with specific intent to communicate falsehood. See United States v. Kerley, 643 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (citation omitted); Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 359 (1973) (“state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether ‘he does not believe [his answer] to be true.’ ” (alteration in original)). The Court cannot conclude that willful false testimony was given at any point during discovery and declines to dismiss the case on perjury grounds. Cross-examination is the more appropriate vehicle to address any alleged inconsistencies in the record.
The court concluded that the “record is filled with genuine disputes of material fact” warranting denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title VII claims.