Newburgh care facility found not liable for alleged harassment
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a Newburgh-based long-term care facility was not liable for alleged harassment in an employment discrimination case filed on behalf of Black employees.
The plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of employees, alleged the Village at Hamilton Pointe LLC, a health care facility, and Tender Loving Care Management LLC, a health care consultant company, subjected their employees to racial harassment while on the job.
According to the filing brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 52 current and former employees (including seven charging parties named in the complaint) with the facility claim they experienced “severe or pervasive harassment because of their race,” and alleged a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The district court granted Tender Loving Care’s motion for summary judgment on the claims of some of the employees. The court held that the company couldn’t be considered an employer according to the definition of Title VII.
The court also granted Hamilton Pointe’s motion for partial summary judgment for the claims of 40 employees.
Seven other employees went to trial, and a jury awarded damages to one employee.
The EEOC appealed the summary judgment award for Tender Loving Care, partial summary judgment for Hamilton Pointe and the jury’s verdict.
The 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on all three appeals.
In supporting the court’s decision to grant summary judgment for Tender Loving Care and partial summary judgment for Hamilton Pointe, the circuit court stated in its opinion that the alleged harassment experienced by the employees was either not aimed directly at them or was not frequent or severe enough to “change the conditions of the victim’s employment” and be considered a violation of Title VII.
Additionally, the circuit court noted that some of the alleged incidents were not reported to management, therefore leaving management not liable for the situations.
“The employee must show that the employer had ‘enough information so that a reasonable employer would think there was some probability’ of the harassment,” Senior Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote for the court.
In appealing the jury’s verdict, the EEOC suggests the verdict forms submitted to the jury prevented jurors from looking at all the harassment claims as a whole, which could’ve changed the perception of how severe the harassment was.
The forms required jurors to indicate separately whether the commission proved a claimant was subjected to a hostile work environment either by a supervisor or a co-worker/resident.
In response, the circuit court ruled the district court acted well within its discretion by deciding that asking the jury to evaluate supervisor harassment and co-worker/resident harassment both separately and together would have “invited juror confusion.”
The circuit court also stated the district court clearly told the jury to consider “all the circumstances known to the Claimant at the time of employment” when determining if a reasonable person would find the work environment hostile.
Finally, the circuit court supported the district court’s finding that Tender Loving Care cannot be considered an employer according to Title VII because the deposition testimony in the case only demonstrated that “’TLC gave Hamilton Pointe administrators its input and recommendation on these types of employment decisions; it did not make them or otherwise control their outcome.’”
Though the circuit court’s opinion supported the findings of the district court, it does not support the actions the victims were subjected to.
“Whether our legal norms ought to be tightened or updated at the federal or state level to ensure a higher level of civilization in our health care institutions is a pressing subject within the ken of our legislatures and regulatory agencies,” the circuit court stated.