In Walker-Jackson v. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-2066-ART-BNW, 2023 WL 3620552 (D.Nev. May 23, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment sexual harassment claim.
As to the issue of whether the alleged harassment was sufficiently “severe or pervasive,” the court applied the law to the facts as follows:
Here, Walker-Jackson experienced Robson’s behavior as an escalating pattern of harassment that began with weekly verbal sexual innuendo and advancements, progressed to nonconsensual touching, and then to forced kissing and nonconsensual massage. Robson’s harassment of Walker-Jackson took place over more than two years, at two different stores. Walker-Jackson repeatedly told Robson to stop and otherwise indicated she was not interested in his advances, but he refused to listen. After Smith’s issued a written warning to Robson, he began leering and staring at Walker-Jackson in such a way that made her feel threatened, and Walker-Jackson’s coworkers agreed that Robson was acting in a way that signaled his intention to intimidate her. The harassment Walker-Jackson endured at both Store 319 and 366 involved the “same type” of conduct, “occurred relatively frequently,” and was perpetrated by the same individual. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 120-21 (2002).
Based on the facts alleged and construing all evidence in the light most favorable to Walker-Jackson, the evidence is more than sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Robson’s harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Walker-Jackson’s employment.
As for imputing liability to defendant in this “co-worker” harassment case, the court concluded that “[v]iewing all evidence in the light most favorable to Walker-Jackson, the Court concludes that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Smith’s took prompt, appropriate, and effective action to stop Robson’s harassment” and that “[w]hether Smith’s took prompt, appropriate, and effective action presents a genuine issue of material fact.”