Parker v. Conwood Co.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01A01-9807-CV-00386

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; July 20, 1999; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tonya A. Parker, the Plaintiff/Appellant, filed an appeal against Conwood Company, L.P., the Defendant/Appellee, in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee following a summary judgment issued by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, presided over by Judge James E. Walton. Parker began her employment with Conwood on July 22, 1994, and filed a formal complaint of sexual harassment in October 1996 against fellow employee Samuel Anderson, alleging offensive touching that occurred in the presence of witnesses. This complaint led to a written warning for Anderson and initiated a series of investigations into allegations of inappropriate behavior, which resulted in suspensions for Anderson, Parker, and another employee due to 'inappropriate horseplay.' 

Following her initial complaint, Parker reported additional incidents, including one involving another employee, Billy Stuart, which was also investigated but lacked corroborating evidence. On December 19, 1996, Parker resigned after an altercation regarding the use of company equipment. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against Conwood, alleging discrimination and harassment dating back to the start of her employment. The trial court granted Conwood's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the plaintiff failed to establish a critical element necessary to support her sexual harassment claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case.

Sexual harassment has been established, but for the defendant to be held liable, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was aware or should have been aware of the harassment and failed to take appropriate action. The plaintiff argues that supervisors had knowledge of the harassment, but without any complaints from the plaintiff, it would require them to be mind readers to assume she felt harassed. The evidence does not support that the defendant was notified of any conduct without a complaint from the plaintiff. The defendant appropriately addressed the three complaints made by the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff has not met a crucial requirement to support her harassment claim.

On appeal, Ms. Parker questions whether the trial court wrongly determined that the defendant was not aware of a hostile work environment, if there was a factual dispute regarding retaliatory conduct, and if issues concerning constructive discharge existed. The appellate court must independently assess whether the trial court adhered to Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Viewing evidence favorably towards Ms. Parker, the appellate court concurs with the trial court's findings. Although Ms. Parker contended that her employer should have been aware of the harassment due to supervisory knowledge, the burden of proof for co-worker harassment claims is clear. An employer’s liability for harassment by non-supervisory employees is based on negligence, not respondeat superior. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate membership in a protected class, unwelcome harassment due to gender, that the harassment impacted employment conditions, and that the employer failed to respond adequately after being aware of the harassment. For supervisor-created hostile environments, liability hinges on the foreseeability and scope of the supervisor's actions, along with the employer's effective response to mitigate liability.

Ms. Parker contends that she did not need to formally complain to her supervisors about harassment since the conduct occurred in their presence, and they participated in it. However, if her claim is based on co-worker harassment, mere knowledge by her supervisors does not implicate Conwood, especially given an ongoing investigation. For claims of a hostile work environment, there's no evidence that Conwood could have foreseen the alleged conduct or that it fell within the scope of employment. Conwood's actions, which included investigating and disciplining offenders, indicate it responded appropriately. Ms. Parker's claim of retaliatory conduct mirrors her notice issues, and the court found no evidence that Conwood was aware of any retaliatory behavior. To establish constructive discharge, Ms. Parker needed to demonstrate that her work conditions were intolerable, a higher standard than that for a hostile work environment claim, which she failed to meet. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, with costs on appeal awarded to Conwood.