In Lintenich v. PFTN Columbia, LLC d/b/a Planet Fitness, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036, 2022 WL 14812633 (M.D.Tenn. October 25, 2022), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment.
The evidence included the following messages sent to plaintiff (the last of which was a voice message):
- “I want to lay with her sinfully … I’m sorry she’s sexy and best part like u she don’t realize it … Shauna is really sexy in gym clothes.”
- “Would you eat sushi off Brandon [Skelton]? What about buffalo wings off his ass with celery in the crack?”
- “I told Joel I’d aggressively fuck his girlfriend if she ever gave me a sign I could.”
- “He’s waiting for his chance to mount [you].”
- “Him [Cam Sheppard] and you in a CAMwich? [emojis omitted].”
- “Do you show your goodies to a lot of dudes?”
- “I love her and want to mount.”
- “If I wasn’t 300 pounds would you let me bust that pussy open.”
The defendant conducted an investigation, but declined to find that there was actionable sexual harassment and took no action regarding the alleged harasser who sent the above messages. At around this time, the gym closed due to the COVID pandemic; plaintiff was informed that she was “separate, but rehirable.” When the club fully reopened in June 2020 the alleged message sender (Belcher) returned as an employee, while defendant did not contact plaintiff about returning to work.
As to the existence of a hostile work environment in the first instance, the court explained:
Whether harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment is quintessentially a question of fact. To show a hostile work environment, Plaintiff must show, based on a totality of the circumstances, that the harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. To be actionable, the harassment must consist of more than words that simply have sexual content or connotations. Courts consider the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.
Defendant contends Plaintiff cannot show the alleged harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive because she testified that despite the alleged sexual harassment, she was able to go to work and perform her job. Defendant asserts Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the harassment had the effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance.
The Court disagrees. Plaintiff was subjected to a litany of sexual text and voice messages over a period of several months. After months of enduring such conduct, she complained to management that she did not feel comfortable working with Belcher or Sheppard precisely because of their sexual comments to her and about her. The nature of the messages, which could be characterized as lewd, vulgar, and even portending sexual violence, and that the messages persisted for a number of months, is such that a reasonable jury could find the harassment severe and pervasive enough that it altered the terms and conditions of her employment.
[Cleaned up.]
As to imputing liability to defendant, the court held that there were summary judgment-defeating factual questions as to whether defendant “implemented a prompt and appropriate corrective action when it appears Plaintiff was scheduled to work with her alleged harasser after notifying management of the harassment, and, at the conclusion of the investigation, no action was taken against the employees who sent the sexual messages to Plaintiff.”