When Responding to Claims of Sexual Harassment, Half-Hearted Responses by Employers Can Lead to Liability

Employers who are made aware of sexual harassment in the workplace are required to take meaningful remedial action to address the situation. But what happens when an employer does take some response and the victim argues the employer’s response was not sufficient? As the case of Payne v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2024 WL 3360381 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2024) demonstrates, an employer response that arguably does not go far enough in preventing potential harassment opens the door to potential liability. 

The Payne case arises from Plaintiff’s employment as an Inflight Crewmember at the airline JetBlue. Plaintiff alleged that a fellow Inflight Crewmember pulled her out of an elevator and sexually assaulted her during a layover and promptly complained to her employer about the incident. The employer commenced an investigation, which found that Plaintiff was pulled out of the elevator but could not substantiate that it occurred in the violent manner Plaintiff alleged. Following the investigation, the employer issued a write-up for the alleged harasser and coached him on the company’s workplace policies, but did not terminate him. They further told Plaintiff that it would be up to her to avoid working the same flights as her harasser. In litigation, JetBlue argued that in light of their investigation, remedial action, and the fact that Plaintiff never experienced further alleged harassment, Plaintiff’s claims against the company should be dismissed.

The Court disagreed and found a reasonable jury could find that JetBlue failed to take appropriate remedial action. Although the employer was not completely unresponsive after receiving Plaintiff’s complaint, a reasonable jury could find that the employer’s actions were inadequate and liability could be imputed to the employer. The Court explained:

“A jury could, for example, find it unreasonable that JetBlue did not take additional steps to permanently ensure that Plaintiff and Tenorio would not work together after the incident. Based on the evidence in the record, it is not clear whether JetBlue monitored Plaintiff’s and Tenorio’s schedules — and if so, for how long — after the investigation terminated. Defendants argue that they did monitor their schedules, but Paulino told Plaintiff on April 23, 2019, that JetBlue could not “guarantee that [she] would never see [Tenorio] again,” and that it would be up to Plaintiff to “try to avoid” Tenorio using the so-called avoid list. And while Isaac sent an email on May 6, 2019, requesting that certain JetBlue employees indefinitely monitor Tenorio and Plaintiff’s “pairings to ensure they are not paired together,” JetBlue’s corporate representative stated during her deposition that she was not aware of how long JetBlue continued to monitor their pairings after this request was made.” Id. (cleaned up).

As a reasonable jury could find that a reasonable response by the employer required more efforts to ensure that the Plaintiff was not exposed to her harasser, the Court denied the employer’s efforts to have her Title VII hostile work environment claims dismissed and those claims will now be heard by a jury.

The Payne case shows how the law creates meaningful obligations on employers to address harassment, and failure to provide a robust response to allegations can generate serious liability. If you believe you have suffered discrimination or harassment that your employer has not adequately addressed, speak to an experienced employment attorney right away to learn your rights.