In Cagle v. Estes, the First Circuit ruled on what even plaintiff’s counsel considered a “close call” concerning whether the allegations in the Complaint were sufficient to establish that an employer knew or should have known about the hostile work environment in which its employee worked. Accordingly, this case illustrates important principles concerning when employers may or may not be potentially liable for such claims made by employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B (the analysis of which “does not differ greatly” for hostile work environment claims).
The factual circumstances of Cagle are somewhat unusual, although the legal principles arising from it may be applied to other cases. In particular, the plaintiff, Tammy Cagle, worked as a specialty clinician for the Behavioral Health Network (“BHN”), assigned to the “drug court” in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Such courts have been established to try to reduce recidivism by defendants with “substance abuse challenges.” Thomas Estes was the presiding judge in that Court.
While away at a two-day conference with other members of the “drug court team,” Cagle and Estes had a sexual encounter in her hotel room. After this encounter, Cagle stated she did not want a sexual relationship. They both agreed to keep the relationship professional. However, a week later, while both were in Estes’ chambers, he suddenly closed the door and blinds and stated that he wanted to continue their sexual relationship. Cagle claimed the Estes initiated sexual encounters multiple times throughout March 2017. Cagle noticed that Estes would be cold and unaccommodating at committee meetings during times when she said she wanted to end their relationship. However, when she had been complying with his sexual advances, Estes would agree with her and defend her suggestions at those meetings.
Cagle was praised multiple times by her supervisors at BHN for the good work that she was doing. However, on March 17, 2017, Cagle was told she would be placed on immediate administrative leave because of a complaint that had been filed against her. Neither the identity of the complainant nor the details of the complaint were provided to Cagle. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was terminated from her position at the drug court due to “multiple complaints,” and she was assigned to another position at a lower salary. When Cagle asked for information about the alleged complaints, BHN personnel mentioned only her decision to detain a criminal defendant until a treatment bed was available. However, as the presiding judge, Estes (not Cagle) made custody determinations.
In addition, Estes allegedly threatened Cagle by saying things would be worse for her if she made their relationship public. Furthermore, on March 30, 2017, Estes made several critical comments about Cagle’s work to her supervisor, even though two weeks before he had said she was a “top notch clinician.” There were also no written complaints, warnings or disciplinary actions regarding Cagle’s work at the drug court in her BHN personnel file.
In response to the filing of the plaintiff’s Complaint, BHN filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Cagle did not meet the sixth element for hostile work environment under Title VII. The sixth element requires a plaintiff to establish some basis for the employer to be found liable, meaning that she “must present sufficient evidence to show that the discriminatory conduct at issue can be attributable to her employer.” When a hostile work environment is created by the employee’s supervisor, the employer is vicariously liable. On the other hand, if the environment was created by a non-employee or co-employee, the employer is liable only if it was negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment. An employer may be negligent when it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take corrective action. In Cagle, Judge Estes was either a non-employee and BHN was the employer, or Cagle was jointly employed by BHN and the trial court and Estes was a co-worker.
The parties essentially argued whether BHN knew or should have known about the hostile work environment. An employer has actual notice of harassment when it knows of the conduct directly and personally or “is presumed to have received [notice] personally because the evidence within his knowledge was sufficient to put him upon inquiry.” Constructive notice arises “where an employee provides management level personnel with enough information to raise a probability of sexual harassment in the mind of a reasonable employer, or where the harassment is so pervasive and open that a reasonable employer would have had to be aware of it.”
In Cagle, the Plaintiff did not allege pervasive and open harassment. To the contrary, it was undisputed that the sexual encounters occurred in Estes’s judicial chambers or Plaintiff’s home. In addition, because the harassment occurred away from BHN’s premises, “it would be unreasonable to infer that BHN ‘should have been aware’ of Estes’ alleged conduct.” The Plaintiff did not dispute this conclusion either, and also admitted that she never reported Estes’ conduct to BHN.
Nevertheless, the Court denied BHN’s motion to dismiss and found that “the totality of the complainant’s factual allegations are adequate, if barely, to permit Plaintiff” to pursue discovery. The Court supported this decision by noting that the precise knowledge of the chain of events leading to a Title VII violation are unavailable to a plaintiff at the early stages of litigation, the allegations in the Complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff when considering a motion to dismiss, and any ambiguities are to resolved in her favor. Because the allegations when so viewed raised the “possibility that BHN knew or should have known of the sexual harassment,” BHN’s motion was denied.
In this regard, BHN’s supervisors had attended drug court sessions and complimented the Plaintiff’s work several times. Estes had told BHN on March 16, 2017 that Cagle was “top notch.” Even so, the Plaintiff was put on administrative leave the next day, without explanation and without any basis from the documentation in her personnel file. The “multiple complaints” to support Cagle’s permanent removal from the drug court on March 21, 2017 were also not explained to her, except concerning the detention of the defendant until a treatment bed was available, which was Estes’ decision, no Cagle’s. “Thus, it could be inferred that BHN’s stated excuse for Plaintiff’s removal from the drug court was not the real reason, or the whole reason, for ending that assignment.”
Furthermore, while the sexual encounters occurred in private, the Court found that the allegations in the Complaint were sufficient to reasonably infer that others could have been aware of the inappropriate relationship, based on the Plaintiff’s numerous visits to the judge’s chambers and the manner in which they interacted. In addition, the lack of a plausible alternative justification for Cagle’s removal from the drug court makes the inference of discrimination more reasonable. Accordingly, the Court found that Cagle should be permitted to conduct discovery to learn the details of her suspension and removal from the court.
Cagle illustrates three important considerations for employers in “hostile work environment” cases. First, courts are reluctant to grant motions to dismiss. The factors noted above (the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the details of the alleged harassment at the outset of the litigation, the assumption that all facts must be viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, and the resolution of any ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor) apply in all cases. Thus, even in close cases, judges will often permit plaintiffs to conduct some discovery to try to develop additional facts to establish the merits of their claims.
Second, employers should always cite a clear and substantiated reason for terminating or “demoting” an employee. In Cagle, BHN did not provide the plaintiff with the details of nearly all of the original and “multiple” later complaints. The employer provided an explanation of only one complaint, and it seemed unrelated to the employee’s duties and thus potentially pre-textual. These facts raised the possible inference that the employer terminated the employee for a nefarious reason.
Third, employers are responsible for their employees’ work-environments – even if they are not involved in the day-to-day interactions of its employees and others. What an employee’s supervisor observes of her workplace, the information contained in reports of those supervisors, the information contained in the reports of non-employees who work with the employee, and the employer’s general understanding of the employee’s job performance, interactions with others, and work environment are all relevant considerations when determining whether the employer knew or should have known of a potentially hostile work environment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
