Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Fuller v. Idaho Department of Corrections, a U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), finding that it did not violate the rights of a former corrections officer. The female officer sued the IDOC, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination. Although the officer was assaulted and raped by a coworker, the IDOC was not liable when the assaults arose from the employees’ relationship outside the workplace and, upon learning of the incidents, the IDOC immediately began investigating the coworker, barred him from the premises, and ultimately recommended his termination.
Cynthia Fuller began working for the IDOC as a correctional officer in 2004 and was quickly promoted to Sergeant. In 2011, after becoming a probation and parole officer, she requested and received a transfer to the IDOC’s facilities in Caldwell, Idaho. At her new location, Fuller began a consensual sexual relationship with a coworker, which they disclosed to the IDOC several months later. However, shortly after making the disclosure, the coworker assaulted and raped Fuller on three separate occasions, according to her allegations. Despite the first two incidents, Fuller continued the relationship until the third assault, after which she reported the assaults to law enforcement, obtained a protection order, and notified the IDOC.
After using her sick leave and vacation time to take several weeks of unpaid leave, Fuller returned to work. After a month had passed, she met with her supervisors to discuss her most recent request for paid leave and to request that IDOC employees be notified that the coworker was not allowed on premises. At this meeting she stated that she felt ostracized because she had missed training and her coworkers did not understand why she had been absent, but she also stated “that the supervisors ha[d] been very supportive, absolutely.” At the conclusion of the meeting, Fuller’s foremost supervisor stated that they would further clarify to IDOC employees that the coworker was not allowed near or in the building and that they would also look into paid leave options. Six days later, the IDOC issued an email to all of its employees within the district, informing them of the restriction on the coworker. That very same day, after receiving the email, Fuller submitted her resignation. She later filed for unemployment benefits, but the IDOC contested the claim and her request was denied.
After the denial of her request of unemployment benefits, Fuller sued the IDOC claiming that it created a hostile work environment and that she was constructively discharged because she no longer felt safe at work. She also claimed that the IDOC discriminated against her when it placed the coworker on paid administrative for the period of his investigation, but denied her own paid leave request. The IDOC countered these claims by arguing that it had responded to the reports of assault as soon as it was notified of the situation and that, while it was required to grant paid leave to the coworker because he was not allowed to be at work, the IDOC leave policy did not indicate that Fuller was entitled to paid leave.
The Court addressed Fuller’s claims of a hostile work environment and constructive discharge by indicating that the assaults occurred entirely outside the place and scope of her employment and that the IDOC had taken adequate steps to make Fuller feel safe at work. It stated:
Plaintiff complains of no sexually harassing or assaultive conduct that occurred in the workplace. Rather, Plaintiff complains that [her coworker] whom she had been voluntarily seeing outside of the workplace… assaulted her. Fuller’s only complaint concerning the work environment is that some of her co-workers were not talkative after her leave of absence because they did not understand the circumstances of it. Title VII is not a civility code for the workplace, and the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that ostracism by coworkers does not constitute an adverse employment action, at least where it does not have an effect on the employee’s ability to perform her job. The IDOC took effective remedial action against [the coworker]. [He] was suspended and IDOC notified co-workers and supervisors that [he] was not to be on the premises. He did not return to the premises. Any future harassment in the workplace was prevented, and [the coworker] was forced to resign.
Also, the Court concluded that the IDOC had acted within the guidelines of its leave policy when it granted only unpaid leave to Fuller, despite granting paid leave to the coworker during his investigation. It explained:
The Director of IDOC, has averred that where an employee is being investigated and suspended concerning possible disciplinary action, an “employee is not allowed to be at work,” and therefore “continue[s] to receive all pay and benefits during the time they are not allowed to be at work.” He further averred that he had received instruction… from the State Board of Examiners to be restrictive in exercising his discretion to put employees on paid administrative leave… The record does not support a conclusion that there was any discriminatory intent or motive behind not providing Fuller with paid administrative leave… [Fuller] has not provided evidence to support her claim that the decision to provide Cruz paid administrative leave, and not to provide her paid administrative leave was impermissibly based on gender.
Based on this reasoning, the Court determined that Fuller was neither subjected to a hostile work environment nor constructively discharged and that the IDOC’s decision to deny her paid leave did not constitute gender based discrimination. Accordingly, it granted the IDOC’s motion for summary judgment and ruled against all of Fuller’s claims.
Even though this case has a sad set of facts, the Court likely made the right decision. In contrast to other claims that have survived summary judgment, Fuller’s claims failed because the sexual assault occurred off-site; the IDOC took reasonable measures to promptly investigate and discipline the harasser; and she suffered no adverse employment action, such as a demotion or suspension. This case is a good reminder that even if the allegations are disturbing, if the facts do not line up with the legal framework of the claim, then the case will generally not survive. Federal courts are also generally more likely to dismiss employment cases on summary judgment, even on cases that may be a close call. Therefore, as a plaintiff, choosing the right court may be critical to the survival of the case.
