The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Minnesota), recently ruled that a female truck driver can sue for sexual harassment even though much of the conduct complained of occurred after work hours.
After truck driver Rebecca Nichols received citations for unsafe driving, her employer refused to allow her to drive alone and ordered her to find a driving partner. Nichols selected co-worker James Paris but on their first drive together, Paris sexually propositioned Nichols, which she declined.
Co-Worker Won’t Yield
Shortly thereafter, the two headed back out on a six-day trip in a truck that contained a sleeping compartment behind the driver’s seat, separated by a curtain. According to Nichols, on various occasions during the trip Paris opened the curtain to expose himself, stood in the back of the cab in his underwear, leaned over her while she was driving, and exposed himself through a hole in his underwear.
Nichols claimed that she reported the conduct to the company’s safety department five times during the six-day trip. She also claims to have reported the conduct to a company dispatcher, who allegedly instructed her to “endure it” until the trip was over and she could be assigned a new partner. Later in the trip, during a mandatory 34-hour rest period, Paris asked her to sleep with him in exchange for forgiveness of an $800 debt she owed him. Nichols declined and asked to use the truck to drive to a hotel for the night but Paris refused.
The following month, Nichols was terminated after reports that she exceeded the speed limit and used her personal handheld phone while driving. Nichols then sued the company in federal court for sexual harassment. The judge dismissed the claims before trial on the grounds that Nichols had not proved that the company ignored her allegations, and that the conduct that occurred during the 34-hour rest period could not be considered in the lawsuit because it did not happen during work or on the employer’s premises.
Court Makes a U-Turn
Nichols appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court‘s dismissal of the case. They ruled that there were still questions to be resolved as to whether the employer did enough to address the reports of sexual harassment once they were received. Specifically, the Appeals Court noted:
“[The empoloyer] could have ordered Nichols to leave Paris’ truck as soon as it learned about the problem and promptly help her find another driving partner, reprimanded Paris for his behavior, or arranged lodging for her in Laredo instead of permitting her to accompany him to Pharr on May 30. Instead, [they] allegedly took no action to remove her despite her consistent complaints of sexual harassment, but allowed her to go to Paris’ apartment in Pharr, and stranded her there with no available alternate form of transportation.”
The Appeals Court also ruled that the conduct occurring in the 34-hour mandatory rest period should have been evaluated as part of the alleged harassment because “offensive conduct does not necessarily have to transpire at the workplace in order for a juror reasonably to conclude that it created a hostile working environment.” This principle was particularly applicable here because Nichols was on a mandated break from her work trip and was unable to extract herself from the situation. She was denied use of the truck—her only means of transportation—to seek lodging away from the offending coworker.
Finally, the Appeals Court determined that the lower court erroneously found that Nichols’ chose to stay with the truck voluntarily. Requiring an employee to “quit or want to quit” in order to bring a lawsuit under such circumstances would force an employee to choose between her employment and her right to file a legal claim.
As a result of the Eighth Circuit decision, Nichols’ lawsuit was returned to the lower court for a full trial on the merits.
Bottom Line
The Court’s decision is a reminder to employers that they may be held liable for discrimination and hostile work environment claims, even for conduct that occurs away from the workplace. This is particularly true where, as here, the offensive conduct occurs during an after-hours period of a company required activity, such as a business trip or mandatory rest period.
In addition, this is a reminder to respond promptly and decisively to reports of possible on-the-job harassment.