Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment Claim Survives Post-Verdict Motion; Evidence Included Unequal Treatment & Verbal Abuse

In Schlosser v. Vrhabilis, LLC, 2023 WL 6881044 (E.D.Tenn. Oct. 18, 2023), the court denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s sex-based hostile work environment claim in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act o 1964.

From the decision:

In this case, Schlosser proffered sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably concluded that she was subjected to harassment based on her gender while employed by VRH and that the harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. In 2016, VRH employed Schlosser as a diver/tender in connection with an underwater unexploded ordinance removal remediation project off the coast of Chappaquiddick Island (the “Cape Poge Project”). (See Doc. 89, at 16.) Schlosser was the only female hired to work on the project. (See Doc. 90, at 96.) At trial, the jury heard evidence that the following, among other things, occurred during Schlosser’s approximately two months of employment by VRH in connection with the Cape Poge Project:

• On her first day of employment, Schlosser was asked to perform a knot test that her male counterparts were not asked to perform and was instructed to practice tying knots (Doc. 89, at 25–26);

• Schlosser received counseling for “substandard performance” for “sitting in truck tying knots” while “team was unloading equipment from small boat,” even though she was practicing her knots at her supervisor’s direction (id. at 29–31);

• After performing one dive, VRH instructed supervisors to keep Schlosser out of the dive rotation and informed her that she would not be diving again because she was not pulling her weight (id. at 29–30);

• After receiving counseling and seeking to discuss her performance with her team, Tyler Sanders, Schlosser’s dive supervisor, told her to “stop talking” because she was “not a real diver,” “never worked a real job,” her “opinion doesn’t matter,” and she needed “to keep [her] head down” and “shut the F up” (id. at 36; see also Doc. 91, at 116–18);

• Due to the nature of the job, VRH employees lived together and drove to the work site together, and Sanders verbally abused Schlosser before work, during work, and after work (Doc. 89 at 39);

• Schlosser had her driving privileges revoked for getting a vehicle stuck, even though other male employees who got vehicles stuck did not have their driving privileges revoked (id. at 49–50);

• Schlosser was prohibited from diving despite outperforming male teammates who were allowed to continue diving (id. at 82–84; Doc. 91, at 8, 11–12, 21–22; Doc. 92, at 16, 35–38, 44–45);

• While performing tender duties, Aaron Brouse, another diver working on the project, physically pushed Schlosser and screamed obscenities at her for approximately one hour, including yelling at her that, “nobody fucking likes you,” calling her a “slimy bitch,” and telling her that “they will fire you before they fire me,” and that “[y]ou want an enemy, I’ll give you one. I’ll make your life a living hell” (Doc. 89, at 54, 57, 62); and

• Supervisor John Bigos observed Brouse’s behavior and did nothing to stop it (id. at 54; Doc. 90, at 84).

The court concluded that “[a]lthough the foregoing is not an exhaustive list, the jury heard evidence that Schlosser was subjected to unequal treatment as compared to her male counterparts, that she was verbally abused on multiple occasions which included statements suggesting an anti-female animus, and that this abuse continued during non-work hours due to the nature of her employment” and that, “[v]iewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding Schlosser’s employment by VRH in the light most favorable to her as the non-moving party, there is sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably concluded that she was subjected to harassment based on her gender and that the harassment was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment.”

Share This: