X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion. PER CURIAM. Rochelle Hubbard formerly worked for United Parcel Service (“UPS”) as a package bagger and sorter. In September 1996, Hubbard filed this action against UPS, alleging co-worker sexual harassment violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. � � 2000e et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. � � 213.010 et seq., and other claims. After a trial, the jury resolved Hubbard’s other claims in UPS’s favor but awarded her $6,407.50 on her claim of sexual harassment..1 The HONORABLE CHARLES A. SHAW, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. The district court 1 granted UPS judgment as a matter of law on three alternative grounds — Hubbard failed to show that (i) the co-worker’s offensive conduct was based on sex, (ii) the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive, and (iii) UPS knew of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action to correct it. Hubbard appeals. After careful review of the trial record, we agree with the district court that UPS took prompt and appropriate remedial action as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm. Hubbard testified that she was a victim of persistent offensive behavior by co-worker Donald Dallas. Her first problem was Dallas’s penchant for throwing plastic tags at his fellow workers in the package sort area. One night, Dallas threw a tag that struck Hubbard hard enough to leave a mark on her leg. A UPS supervisor saw Dallas throw the tag and criticized him. UPS entered a disciplinary notation on Dallas’s personnel record, and no further tag throwing occurred. Later that month, Hubbard complained that Dallas had thrown a shipping envelope that struck Hubbard in the face. Her supervisor spoke with Dallas, admonished him to handle packages appropriately, but did not note the incident on his personnel record. Shortly thereafter, Dallas pulled out the waist band of his pants in front of Hubbard and a male co-worker. When Hubbard objected, Dallas did it again, exposing himself with the comment that he had nothing to hide. The next day, Hubbard complained about this indecent conduct. She met with a UPS Human Resources Department supervisor and detailed all of Dallas’s offensive behavior, beginning with the tag throwing and ending with his latest indecency. Hubbard also said she did not want Dallas to lose his job. UPS supervisors promptly met with Dallas, explained UPS’s sexual harassment policy, and warned him about harassing behavior. UPS transferred Hubbard to a work area at the opposite end of the 50,000 square foot facility, noted Hubbard’s allegations in his personnel record, and warned him that further harassment or retaliation against Hubbard would result in his termination. Hubbard testified she was satisfied with these remedial actions. When she later filed a grievance because Dallas had entered her work area on his way to the restroom and given her “dirty looks,” Hubbard was offered a job in another part of the building, which she declined. Dallas accepted the position, and Hubbard made no further complaints about Dallas. “Sexual harassment by a co-employee is not a violation of Title VII unless an employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Barrett v. Omaha Nat’l Bank, 726 F.2d 424, 427 (8th Cir. 1984); see Zirpel v. Toshiba America Info. Systems, Inc., 111 F.3d 80, 81 (8th Cir. 1997). When Hubbard first complained that Dallas had engaged in sexually offensive conduct, UPS took immediate remedial action that Hubbard agreed was appropriate, transferring Dallas to a distant work area, reinforcing the company’s sexual harassment policy with him, noting Hubbard’s complaint in his permanent employee record, and warning him that further harassment or retaliation would result in his termination. The punishment suited Dallas’s misconduct, and no further sexually offensive conduct occurred. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy.
Rochelle Hubbard v. United Parcel Service United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Rochelle Hubbard, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United Parcel Service, Defendant – Appellee. No. 99-1463 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Submitted: November 10, 1999 Filed: January 7, 2000 Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
April 16, 2024 - April 17, 2024
Chicago, IL

Join General Counsel and Senior Legal Leaders at the Premier Forum Designed For and by General Counsel from Fortune 1000 Companies


Learn More
April 16, 2024 - April 17, 2024
New York, NY

This conference brings together the industry's most influential & knowledgeable real estate executives from the net lease sector.


Learn More
April 18, 2024
New York, NY

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!


Learn More

Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...


Apply Now ›

Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...


Apply Now ›

At NJM, a top-rated insurance company, we are seeking an Attorney on our Workers Compensation legal team with between 3 and 5 years of expe...


Apply Now ›
04/15/2024
Connecticut Law Tribune

MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS


View Announcement ›
04/11/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
04/08/2024
Daily Report

Daily Report 1/2 Page Professional Announcement 60 Days


View Announcement ›