The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
AT KNOXVILLE
DEBORAH H. STEELE, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9709-CH-00395
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v.
)
)
FILED
) APPEAL AS OF Nov. 10, 1998
RIGHT FROM THE
) HAMILTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate Court Clerk
SUPERIOR HOME HEALTH CARE OF )
CHATTANOOGA, INC., and )
DAVID TWOMBLEY, individually, )
) HONORABLE R. VANN OWENS,
Defendants-Appellants. ) CHANCELLOR
For Appellant Superior Home For Appellee
Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc.
GRACE E. DANIELL
J. SCOTT McDEARMAN Starr & Daniell, P.C.
TONYA K. CAMMON Chattanooga, Tennessee
Grant, Konvalinka &
Harrison, P.C.
Chattanooga, Tennessee
For Appellant David Twombley
JOHN C. HARRISON
CYNTHIA R. FREEMON
Baker, Donelson, Bearman &
Caldwell
Chattanooga, Tennessee
O P I N IO N
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.
1
The plaintiff, Deborah H. Steele (“Steele”), brought
this action against her former employer, Superior Home Health
Care of Chattanooga, Inc. (“Superior”), and her former
supervisor, David Twombley (“Twombley”)1, alleging that she was
the victim of, among other things, sexual harassment, outrageous
conduct, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After various other claims were dismissed by the trial court2,
the case proceeded to trial before a jury on Steele’s claim of
sexual harassment against both Superior and Twombley under the
Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq. (“THRA”),
and her claim of outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, against Twombley alone. The jury found in
favor of Steele on all of the remaining theories of recovery and
awarded her $1.2 million in compensatory damages and $60,000 in
punitive damages. The trial court also awarded Steele attorney’s
fees and costs against both defendants. After Steele accepted a
remittitur that eliminated the punitive damages award and reduced
the compensatory damages award to $850,000, both Superior and
Twombley appealed, raising in substance the following issues for
our consideration:
1. Did the trial court err in allowing
inadmissible hearsay testimony from witnesses
who did not have first-hand knowledge of the
events in question?
1
Steele also sued Alpha Medical, Inc.; however, she subsequently took a
voluntary nonsuit as to that entity.
2
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Superior on
Steele’s claims of outrageous conduct, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and negligent hiring and retention of employees. The court also
directed a verdict in favor of Superior on Steele’s retaliatory discharge
claim. The plaintiff does not raise any issues as to these actions of the
trial court.
2
2. Did Steele’s counsel make improper and
prejudicial statements during closing
argument, thus warranting a new trial?
3. Is there material evidence in the record
to support the jury’s verdict?
4. Did the trial court err in submitting to
the jury Steele’s cause of action against
Twombley under the THRA?
5. Did the trial court err in giving the
jury an inaccurate charge, thereby
prejudicing its verdict against Twombley?
6. Did the trial court err in not suggesting
a further remittitur of the jury’s verdict?
7. Did the trial court err in awarding
attorney’s fees against Twombley under the
THRA?
I.
Steele, a psychiatric nurse, was hired by Superior in
late 1991. She was originally supervised by Linda Nation.
Shortly thereafter, she also came under the administrative
supervision of Twombley, who had been hired by Superior to
develop new programs, including the psychiatric program to which
Steele was assigned.
Steele testified that she began having problems with
Twombley shortly after coming under his supervision. She stated
that when she first saw Twombley, he told her that he knew she
had a reputation for having been involved with a male patient --
a charge that Steele denied. She also testified that, on a trip
to Athens, Tennessee, Twombley became upset with her when she
expressed concerns about the amount of time she was on call, and
told her that if she quit she would “never work anywhere else in
3
this town again.” Steele also stated that, while returning to
Chattanooga on the same trip, Twombley made an extremely
offensive remark, using vulgar terms regarding how much he liked
sex. The next day, Steele told one of her clinical supervisors,
Cindy Ewton, about Twombley’s remarks, and a meeting was
eventually arranged among Steele, her two clinical supervisors
(Ewton and Nation), and Mary Hogg, Superior’s Executive Director
of Nursing. Steele testified that she complained to Hogg about
Twombley’s behavior, but that no corrective action was taken as a
result of the meeting. Hogg testified that she met with
Twombley, who denied making any inappropriate statements, and
informed him that such behavior would not be tolerated.
Over the course of the next year, according to Steele,
Twombley continued to behave inappropriately toward her in the
workplace. Specifically, she testified that he would, among
other things, stand too close to her; kneel at her desk and touch
her knee to “steady himself”; attempt to engage her in sexual
conversations; ask if she had tried various sexual acts; make
comments such as, “I bet your boyfriend has a lot of fun in bed
with you”; talk about sexual incidents involving his former
patients; and make various demeaning comments to her, such as
calling her “stupid” or “dumb.” Steele also testified that on
one occasion, Twombley showed her a performance evaluation in his
office, turned off the overhead light, and gave her a rose. She
stated that he would frequently ask her to go hiking, or to go
out for coffee or dinner, and that he would get angry when she
declined his invitations. Steele testified that on one occasion
after she had told Twombley that the only relationship she wanted
4
with him was a professional one, he said, “no, I want a
commitment from you.”
Steele testified that she continued to complain about
Twombley’s actions to her immediate clinical supervisors, Ewton
and Nation. She testified that despite her complaints, nothing
was done to stop Twombley’s behavior, which became progressively
more offensive. According to Steele, Twombley continued to make
statements such as, “I’ll show you what a real man is all about,”
as well as more offensive comments to the effect that they would
not have any problems between them if she would give in to his
advances. Steele further testified that on more than one
occasion, he made references to his desire to engage in oral sex
with her. Steele also described an incident in which Twombley
told her he had written a letter requesting a raise for her and
then said, “[y]ou could be a lot of fun to work with. I’m a lot
of fun to work with... a woman like [you] would like a little
gentle pain.”
Steele maintained that, on more than one occasion, she
investigated the possibility of transferring to other positions.
She stated that she was twice told that she was too valuable to
the psychiatric program, and that on another occasion, she was
simply told that she could not have an available supervisory
position.
Steele also testified that Twombley continued to behave
inappropriately on work-related trips. She stated that on one
such occasion, Twombley indicated that he was aroused and
5
attempted to place her hand on him. According to Steele,
Twombley’s harassment on these trips culminated in an April,
1993, trip back from the Dayton, Tennessee office, when Twombley
drove to an isolated area in a park, forcibly pulled Steele out
of the car, and violently raped her. Steele testified that
following the rape she did not see a doctor or go to the police;
in fact, she explained that she essentially “blocked out” the
incident and did not come to terms with what had happened until
approximately three years later, after she had undergone
extensive therapy. This testimony was substantiated by Dr. David
Solovey, Steele’s psychologist, who testified that her memory of
the rape had been suppressed until it was brought to the surface
in the course of her therapy.
Subsequent to the events of April, 1993, Steele
continued to work under Twombley’s supervision. She testified
that the harassment continued, and that she ultimately arranged
another meeting with Mary Hogg in August, 1993. At that time,
Hogg met with Steele and several other nurses to discuss
Twombley’s behavior. Twombley resigned on August 16, 1993. He
originally gave two weeks’ notice. After meeting with Steele and
the other nurses, however, Hogg suggested that Twombley leave
immediately, and he complied.
Steele continued working at Superior until December,
1993, at which time the psychiatric program was terminated.
In support of her claims, Steele introduced the
testimony of various supervisory and nursing personnel who had
6
worked for Superior. Among other things, these witnesses related
their observations regarding Twombley’s behavior toward Steele,
as well as Steele’s complaints regarding that behavior. For
example, Janet Weise, who also worked as a nurse in the
psychiatric program, testified that Twombley had made sexual
comments and innuendos regarding Steele to her. She also stated
that, around the time of Twombley’s resignation, she had met with
Hogg and reported some of Twombley’s comments because she was
concerned about the stress he was placing on Steele. Linda
Nation, one of Steele’s clinical supervisors, testified that
Twombley had made derogatory remarks to her about Steele’s
reputation. She also testified that Steele had continually
complained about Twombley’s behavior. Wanda Martin, a physical
therapy assistant, testified that she had observed Twombley
hovering over Steele and kneeling at her desk, and that she had
noticed that this made Steele uncomfortable. Virginia Mastin,
another nurse in the psychiatric program, described similar
incidents, and also recalled Twombley asking what size underwear
Steele wore. She testified that she also met with Hogg to
express her concern over Twombley’s behavior toward Steele.
Martin further testified that although James Callaway, Superior’s
Executive Director and Hogg’s immediate supervisor, had been made
aware of Steele’s complaints, he did nothing in response.
Another witness, Cindy Ewton -- one of Steele’s clinical
supervisors -- testified that Steele complained repeatedly about
Twombley, and that she had reported all of Steele’s complaints in
her chain of command to her own supervisor, Darlene Bellows.
7
In defense of Steele’s claims, Superior offered the
testimony of Darlene Bellows and Kathleen Grimes, each of whom
had supervised Steele for a short time. Both Bellows and Grimes
testified that they had never witnessed Twombley behave
inappropriately. Mary Hogg testified to the same effect. Hogg
also stated that, following her initial meeting with Steele, the
latter did not complain to her again until August of 1993.
Finally, James Callaway testified that no one, including Steele,
had ever complained to him regarding Twombley. Twombley, for his
part, denied Steele’s allegations.
The jury determined that the defendants were liable to
Steele on the theories of hostile environment and quid pro quo
sexual harassment. It additionally found that Twombley was
liable to Steele for his outrageous conduct and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.3 The jury thus awarded Steele
$1.2 million in compensatory damages, and $60,000 in punitive
damages. The trial court suggested a remittitur of the full
amount of punitive damages and $350,000 of the compensatory
damages, thereby reducing the verdict to $850,000 -- the amount
sued for in the complaint. It then denied the defendants’
motions for a new trial, contingent upon Steele’s acceptance of
the remittitur. Steele accepted the remittitur without protest.
Both defendants appealed.
II.
3
The jury responded to specific interrogatories.
8
Steele’s sexual harassment claims were brought pursuant
to the provisions of the THRA, T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq. The
THRA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 4-21-401(a)
It is a discriminatory practice for an
employer to:
(1) Fail or refuse to hire or discharge any
person or otherwise to discriminate against
an individual with respect to compensation,
terms, conditions or privileges of employment
because of such individual’s race, creed,
color, religion, sex, age or national
origin;...
§ 4-21-301
It is a discriminatory practice for a person
or for two (2) or more persons to:
* * *
(2) Aid, abet, incite, compel or command a
person to engage in any of the acts or
practices declared discriminatory by this
chapter;...
A “person” is defined by the THRA to include a corporation. See
T.C.A. § 4-21-102(14).
III.
We turn first to the admission-of-evidence issue raised
by Superior. It contends that the trial court erred in allowing
a number of witnesses to testify regarding Twombley’s alleged
harassment when they did not have firsthand knowledge of his
conduct. Specifically, Superior insists that the testimony of
four witnesses -- Linda Nation, Wanda Martin, Willadean Carrol,
9
and Virginia Mastin -- was based only on what those witnesses had
been told by Steele, and was, therefore, improperly admitted.
With regard to Nation’s testimony, we note that she was
one of Steele’s clinical supervisors. Thus, Steele’s comments to
her regarding Twombley’s behavior were admissible to prove that
Superior had notice of the alleged harassment, rather than for
the purpose of proving the truth of her assertions. These
complaints had “legal significance and effectuate[d] legal
consequences, in and of themselves, irrespective or their truth
or falsity,” and, as such, were not hearsay. See Brown v. Daly,
968 S.W.2d 814, 818 (Tenn.App. 1997).
The other witnesses whose testimony Superior challenges
were not supervisory personnel. However, Martin and Mastin both
testified that they had observed Twombley standing close to
Steele, kneeling at her desk, and obviously making her
uncomfortable. Martin testified that she had on one occasion
called Steele and asked if she needed to get away from Twombley,
who was then at Steele’s desk; Steele responded affirmatively and
pretended that she was speaking to a patient so that Twombley
would leave her alone. Virginia Mastin testified that she had
heard Twombley make several inappropriate comments of a sexual
nature regarding Steele and others. Mastin stated that she
became concerned for Steele’s safety and arranged a meeting with
Hogg. Given the nature of this testimony, these witnesses did
not lack firsthand knowledge of Twombley’s behavior. We
acknowledge that the testimony of the fourth witness, Carrol, a
co-worker, was essentially based on statements made to her by
10
Steele. However, Carrol testified very briefly on this subject
and added little, if anything, to the record as a whole. We do
not find, considering the entire record, that the admission of
Carrol’s testimony “more probably than not affected the
judgment.” Rule 36(b), T.R.A.P. Accordingly, any error in
admitting Carrol’s testimony, or any similar testimony by co-
workers Martin and Mastin regarding Steele’s complaints to them,
was harmless. Id. We find Superior’s first issue to be without
merit.
IV.
Superior and Twombley both argue that Steele’s attorney
made prejudicial statements during closing argument, thereby
warranting a new trial. Specifically, they contend that Steele’s
attorney made an improper “Golden Rule” argument4 by making the
following statement to the jury:
Ask yourself, if this had happened to your
close friend, if this had happened to your
sister, your daughter, how would you value
it?
In its charge to the jury, the trial court issued the following
curative instruction:
...it would be improper for you to award --
what you would take as damages for the wrongs
allegedly suffered by the plaintiff here are
really perhaps -- in argument, someone may
have talked about if it had been your mother
or someone in your family what would be the
4
See Perkins v. Sadler, 826 S.W.2d 439, 442-43 (Tenn.App. 1991).
11
reasonable compensation. That’s not the law.
You need to apply the law and do your job as
jurors to give your best assessment and not
substitute yourself or any one person in the
place of the plaintiff, but use your best
judgment and then establish an amount of
damages that’s fair and reasonable in light
of the evidence before you.
It is well-established that the trial court is vested
with sound discretion in exercising control over what will or
will not be permitted in argument. See, e.g., Perkins v. Sadler,
826 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn.App. 1991). It has also been stated
that
[g]enerally the appellate courts will not
interfere with the discretionary action of
the trial court in refusing a mistrial or a
new trial for misconduct of counsel in
argument unless the argument is clearly
unwarranted and made purely for the purpose
of appealing to passion, prejudice and
sentiment which has not or cannot be removed
by sustaining objection of opposing counsel,
or unless the appellate court finds
affirmatively that it affected the result of
the trial. [Citations omitted.]
Id. (quoting J. Avery Bryan, Inc. v. Hubbard, 225 S.W.2d 282, 287
(Tenn.App. 1949)).
We agree with the defendants that counsel’s statement
was improper. However, we believe that the trial court’s
curative instruction was sufficient to blunt the risk of any
prejudicial effect upon the jury’s verdict. We certainly cannot
say that counsel’s improper argument affected the jury’s verdict
in this case. Perkins, 826 S.W.2d at 442.
12
V.
We next turn to the defendants’ contentions that the
jury’s verdict was contrary to the evidence and resulted from
passion, prejudice or caprice. In this connection, Superior
argues that Steele failed to establish certain elements of her
hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment claims
under the THRA. Twombley, meanwhile, insists that he cannot be
held individually liable under the THRA. Both challenge the
amount of damages.
A.
In reviewing a jury’s verdict, we must decide if the
record contains “material evidence to support the verdict.” Rule
13(d), T.R.A.P.; Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products, 929 S.W.2d
326, 331 n.2 (Tenn. 1996); Pettus v. Hurst, 882 S.W.2d 783, 788
(Tenn.App. 1993); Benson v. Tennessee Valley Elec. Coop., 868
S.W.2d 630, 640 (Tenn.App. 1993). In this case, the trial judge
approved the jury’s verdict, as remitted. Thus, it is clear that
...the trial judge’s approval of the amount
of the jury’s verdict invokes the material
evidence rule, just as it does with respect
to all other factual issues upon which
appellate review is sought, and that “[a]ll
of the evidence in the record that tends to
support the amount of the verdict should be
given full faith and credit upon appellate
review.”
13
Poole v. Kroger Co., 604 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Tenn. 1980)(citing Ellis
v. White Freightliner Corp., 603 S.W.2d 125 (Tenn. 1980)). We
are required to take the strongest legitimate view of all the
evidence, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, to
sustain the verdict; to assume the truth of all the evidence that
supports it; and to discard all evidence to the contrary. Poole,
604 S.W.2d at 54. In this analysis, we do not weigh the
evidence, nor do we determine the credibility of the witnesses.
Id.; Grissom v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville, 817 S.W.2d 679,
684 (Tenn.App. 1991). On the contrary, “[r]econciling apparently
conflicting testimony and evaluating the witnesses’ credibility
are, in the first instance, the jury’s responsibilities.” Id. at
683. Furthermore, as noted in Grissom,
[s]exual harassment cases, by their very
nature, require the finders of fact to
reconcile conflicting testimony by evaluating
the witnesses’ credibility.
Id. at 684.
B.
We turn now to the question of whether the evidence
satisfied each element of Steele’s hostile environment harassment
claim. Generally speaking, a hostile work environment is created
“where conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”
Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 31 (Tenn.
14
1996)(quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106
S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986)). The basic elements of a
supervisor-created, hostile work environment sexual harassment
claim under the THRA are:
(1) the employee was a member of a protected
class;
(2) the employee was subjected to unwelcomed
sexual harassment;
(3) the harassment occurred because of the
employee’s gender; [and]
(4) the harassment affected a “term,
condition or privilege” of employment....
Carr v. United Parcel Service, 955 S.W.2d 832, 836 (Tenn. 1997).
In addition, the Supreme Court held in Carr that employer
liability also depends on: “(1) whether the supervisor’s
harassing actions were foreseeable or fell within the scope of
employment; and (2) even if they were, whether the employer
responded adequately and effectively to negate liability.”5 Id.
at 838; Sanders v. Lanier, 968 S.W.2d 787, 789 n.4 (Tenn. 1998).
Thus, the Court held, “the employer’s liability is predicated on
its reaction to the discriminatory conduct.” Carr, 955 S.W.2d at
838.6
5
In so holding, the Court in effect drew a distinction between hostile
environment claims based upon supervisor harassment, and those arising from
co-worker harassment. In enumerating the elements of the latter type of
claim, the Court noted that, in addition to the four elements listed above,
the plaintiff must prove that “the employer knew or should have known of the
harassment and failed to respond with prompt and appropriate corrective
action.” Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 836 (emphasis added)(citing Spicer v. Bearman
Bottling Co., 937 S.W.2d 884, 888 (Tenn. 1996)).
6
We are aware of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decisions in
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141
L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct.
2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). In those cases, the Supreme Court held that
15
Neither defendant argues that there is no material
evidence to establish the first four elements of a hostile
environment harassment claim. Even if they had, our review of
the record, and particularly the testimony of Steele and the
witnesses called to testify on her behalf, persuades us that
there is material evidence that Twombley sexually harassed
Steele. Superior does contend, however, that Steele failed to
establish the basis for employer liability in that she failed to
prove the last two elements stated in Carr. Specifically,
Superior argues that Twombley’s actions were not foreseeable, and
that it responded adequately and effectively so as to negate
liability. However, Superior acknowledges -- and we agree --
that Twombley’s actions “allegedly occurred during work hours and
in a work setting,” i.e., within the scope of employment. We
[a]n employer is subject to vicarious liability to a
victimized employee for an actionable hostile
environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or
successively higher) authority over the employee.
When no tangible employment action is taken, a
defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to
liability or damages, subject to proof by a
preponderance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule Civ.
Proc. 8(c). The defense comprises two necessary
elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable
care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually
harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff
employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any
preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the
employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
Burlington Industries, 118 S.Ct at 2270; Faragher, 118 S.Ct. at 2292-93. In
these decisions, the Supreme Court proceeded through a detailed analysis of
the circumstances under which an employer’s conduct may lead to liability in
hostile environment cases. It is true that Burlington and Faragher set forth
the two above-quoted elements as an affirmative defense that may be
established by the employer; Carr, on the other hand, focuses on whether the
supervisor’s actions were foreseeable or fell within the scope of employment,
as well as on the sufficiency of the employer’s response. Carr, 955 S.W.2d at
838. However, we do not believe that the expanded analysis of Burlington and
Faragher impacts our review of the instant case under the Carr decision. Our
Supreme Court has yet to address the impact of Burlington and Faragher; we
therefore proceed under the framework set forth in Carr.
16
find and hold that there is material evidence that Twombley’s
“harassing actions were foreseeable or fell within the scope of
employment.” Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 838. Accordingly, there is
material evidence establishing the first prong of Carr’s test of
employer liability for hostile work environment harassment. Id.
As to the final criterion for imposing liability upon
an employer, Superior points to the following facts as evidence
that it responded “adequately and effectively” to the alleged
harassment: Hogg’s investigation and verbal warning to Twombley
following her initial meeting with Steele; Steele’s failure to
complain again to Hogg until approximately 18 months later; and
Superior’s request, following Steele’s “second complaint of
sexual harassment,” that Twombley leave his job immediately.
Our Supreme Court has stated that determinations
regarding the appropriateness of an employer’s response depend
upon the circumstances of each case. Campbell, 919 S.W.2d at 33.
In this instance, the record contains material evidence that
Superior failed to respond “adequately and effectively” to
Steele’s complaints. Taking the strongest legitimate view of all
the evidence to sustain the verdict, Poole, 604 S.W.2d at 54, it
is clear that Steele complained to Hogg following her trip to
Athens; that despite Hogg’s “warning” to Twombley, his harassment
of Steele continued; that Steele’s supervisors, Nation and Ewton,
had knowledge of the harassment; and that not enough was done to
curb Twombley’s behavior during his employment at Superior.
There is material evidence in the record to indicate that, by the
time Hogg told Twombley to leave Superior immediately, he had
17
harassed Steele for approximately a year and a half and had raped
her in April, 1993.
Accordingly, we hold that the record contains material
evidence to support the jury’s finding that Superior is liable
for the hostile environment created by Twombley’s harassment of
Steele.7 See Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.
We next address the question of whether Twombley may be
individually liable under the THRA on a theory of hostile work
environment sexual harassment. As noted earlier, the THRA
prohibits an employer from engaging in discriminatory practices
against a person based on sex. T.C.A. § 4-21-401. The THRA’s
definition of “employer” includes “any person acting as an agent
of an employer, directly or indirectly.” T.C.A. § 4-21-102(4).
However, the Supreme Court expressly held in Carr that “the
THRA’s ‘agent of an employer’ language does not impose individual
liability.” Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 835. The Court did opine that
an individual, under the proper circumstances, could be liable
under the THRA’s prohibition against aiding or abetting others
who engage in discriminatory acts. Id. at 836; see T.C.A. § 4-
21-301(2).
Twombley asserts that the record does not support a
finding that he violated the “aiding and abetting” provision of
T.C.A. § 4-21-301(2). The Carr decision, however, states that
“[a] supervisor ... may be individually liable for encouraging or
7
In view of our resolution of this issue in Steele’s favor, we do not
find it necessary to reach her separate issue that Superior failed to preserve
the question of the adequacy of the proof in its motion for a new trial.
18
preventing the employer from taking corrective action.” Id. at
838. It further provides that “for purposes of deciding
accomplice liability, a claim of supervisor created hostile work
environment should be subject to the same analysis as a claim of
co-worker harassment.” Id. Thus, a supervisor is individually
liable under a hostile work environment theory where the
following is established:
(1) that a hostile work environment existed;
(2) that the [supervisor] acted affirmatively
to aid, abet, incite, compel or command an
employer not to take remedial action to the
hostile work environment; and
(3) that the employer engaged in employment-
related discrimination by failing to take
adequate remedial action.
Id. at 837.
In the instant case, it is clear that a hostile
environment existed; furthermore, we have previously found that
the evidence supports the conclusion that Superior failed to take
adequate remedial action. Thus, the first and third elements
listed above are satisfied. Id. As to the second element, we
find that Twombley acted affirmatively in discouraging Superior
from taking corrective action by telling his own supervisor, Mary
Hogg, that he did not make the sexually explicit remark
originally complained of by Steele. Twombley’s denial that the
conduct occurred was obviously designed to cover up his conduct
and thus discourage Hogg and Superior from taking any action to
remedy the hostile environment. Id. While this, by itself, does
19
not excuse Superior’s lack of action, Twombley’s denial is
significant in the aiding and abetting analysis. Generally
speaking, a denial of involvement in the offensive conduct tends
to encourage an employer not “to take remedial action.” Id. We
do not see how it can be argued otherwise.
Having escaped discipline, Twombley proceeded to harass
Steele with increasing frequency and severity, until he
ultimately resigned. We therefore find that, under the facts of
this case, Twombley can be held individually liable for hostile
environment sexual harassment as an aider and abetter. See Carr,
955 S.W.2d at 835-38. Accordingly, we hold that the jury’s
verdict finding him liable on that theory is sustained by the
evidence.
20
C.
We now turn to the second theory upon which the jury
found the defendants liable - quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Generally speaking, “[q]uid pro quo harassment occurs when a
supervisor conditions employment benefits on ‘sexual favors.’”
Id. at 837; Sanders, 968 S.W.2d at 789. To prevail on a claim
against an employer based on this theory, a plaintiff must show:
(1) that the employee was a member of a
protected class;
(2) that the employee was subjected to
unwelcome sexual harassment in the form of
sexual advances or requests for sexual
favors;
(3) that the harassment complained of was
based on sex;
(4) that the employee’s submission to the
unwelcome advances was an express or implied
condition for receiving job benefits or that
the employee’s refusal to submit to the
supervisor’s demands resulted in a tangible
job detriment; and
(5) the existence of respondeat superior
liability.
Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 837; Sanders, 968 S.W.2d at 789. As to the
fifth element, the Supreme Court expressly stated in Carr that
[t]he employer is strictly liable for a
supervisor’s quid pro quo harassment under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.... Under
[an] alter ego theory of liability, the
supervisor’s acts within the scope of
employment are imputed to the employer.
Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 837; see also Sanders, 968 S.W.2d at 789-90.
21
Superior insists that Steele failed to prove the fourth
element of her quid pro quo claim. We agree. We acknowledge
that there is some evidence that Twombley may have impliedly
offered Steele job benefits in exchange for sexual favors;
however, there is absolutely no evidence that Steele voluntarily
submitted to his advances. Thus, Steele was required to prove
that her refusal to give in to Twombley resulted in some
“tangible job detriment” to her. Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 837;
Sanders, 968 S.W.2d at 789. As stated in Burlington Industries,
Inc. v. Ellerth,
[w]hen a plaintiff proves that a tangible
employment action resulted from a refusal to
submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands, he
or she establishes that the employment
decision itself constitutes a change in the
terms and conditions of employment....
Id., 118 S.Ct. at 2265; see also, Reinhold v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, 151 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir. 1998). The United
States Supreme Court defined a “tangible employment action” as “a
significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing,
failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different
responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in
benefits.” Burlington Industries, 118 S.Ct. at 2268.
The record in the instant case indicates that Steele
received positive job evaluations from Twombley. She was not
demoted or reassigned, nor did she receive any reduction in
salary or benefits. Her termination did not occur until
approximately four months after Twombley’s resignation, and,
22
following the dismissal of her retaliatory discharge claim, it
does not appear that Steele has argued that her termination was
related to the harassment. Thus, the record is devoid of any
material evidence that an adverse “tangible employment action”
resulted from Steele’s refusal to submit to Twombley’s advances.
Burlington Industries, 118 S.Ct. at 2265; Reinhold, 151 F.3d at
175.8 Accordingly, we find that the record does not contain
material evidence to support the jury’s finding that Superior is
liable to Steele on the theory of quid pro sexual harassment.
Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.; Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 837.
Twombley, meanwhile, contends that he cannot be held
individually liable for quid pro quo harassment under the THRA.
He insists that the trial court should have granted his motion
for directed verdict as to that claim. The Supreme Court in Carr
specifically declined to address the question of individual
supervisor liability for quid pro quo discrimination.9 Id. at
837-38. Since we have already determined that this case does not
present a viable claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, we do
not need to resolve this issue left open in Carr.
8
In Reinhold, the plaintiff was allegedly subjected to various forms of
harassment, including threats of suspension and the assignment of extra work
when she refused her supervisor’s advances; however, the Court noted that the
plaintiff did not allege, nor did the evidence show, that she had suffered “a
‘tangible employment action’ sufficient to give rise to the automatic
imputation of liability against [the defendants] for [the supervisor’s]
actions.” Reinhold, 151 F.3d at 175.
9
The Court did acknowledge that several state anti-discrimination
statutes have been construed to provide for individual liability. Carr, 955
S.W.2d at 837-38 (citing St. Peter v. Ampak-Division of Gatewood Products,
Inc., 199 W.Va. 365, 484 S.E.2d 481 (1997); Schram v. Albertson’s, Inc. 146
Or.App. 45, 934 P.2d 483 (1997); Tyson v. CIGNA Corp., 918 F.Supp. 836 (D.N.J.
1996); Conway v. City of Hartford, 9 N.D.L.R. P 167, 1997 WL 78585
(Conn.Super.Ct. 1997); Johnson v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 522 N.W.2d 386
(Minn.Ct.App. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 536 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. 1995); and
DuPuis v.Con-Test, Inc., 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 163, 1995 WL 809975 (Mass.Super.Ct.
1995)).
23
In summary, we hold that the record contains material
evidence to support the jury’s finding that Superior is liable
under the THRA for hostile environment sexual harassment. The
jury’s verdict finding Superior liable on the theory of quid pro
quo harassment, however, is not supported by the evidence. With
regard to Twombley, we hold that the evidence supports a finding
of liability as an aider and abetter on the theory of hostile
environment harassment.
D.
As indicated earlier, the jury also found Twombley
liable for “outrageous conduct and/or intentional infliction of
emotional distress.” We now examine the record to determine if
there is material evidence to support the jury’s finding as to
that claim.
“Intentional infliction of emotional distress and
outrageous conduct are not two separate torts, but are simply
different names for the same cause of action.” Bain v. Wells,
936 S.W.2d 618, 622 n.3 (Tenn. 1997). There are three elements
to the claim:
(1) the conduct complained of must be
intentional or reckless;
(2) the conduct must be so outrageous that it
is not tolerated by civilized society; and
(3) the conduct complained of must result in
serious mental injury.
Id.
24
For reasons not entirely clear, Twombley does not
specifically argue on appeal that the evidence is contrary to the
jury’s finding that he is liable for outrageous conduct. In any
event -- taking the strongest legitimate view of all the
evidence, Poole, 604 S.W.2d at 54 -- we find that the proof of
Twombley’s harassment and rape of Steele, and the emotional
effects that his actions had upon her, clearly satisfies the
elements of the cause of action. Accordingly, we hold that the
record does contain material evidence to support the jury’s
verdict against Twombley on the theory of outrageous
conduct/intentional infliction of emotional distress. Rule
13(d), T.R.A.P.
E.
The defendants further argue that the verdict must be
set aside, insisting that the jury’s award was “outside the
bounds of reasonableness” and the product of passion, prejudice
or caprice. The defendants also contend that the trial court
erred in failing to further remit the award.
As we have previously stated, we must affirm the jury’s
verdict if the record contains material evidence to support it.
Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.; Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products, 929
S.W.2d 326, 331 n.2 (Tenn. 1996). In our review, we are guided
by a well-established principle:
The amount of the verdict is primarily for
the jury to determine, and next to the jury
the most competent person to pass upon the
25
matter is the judge who presided at the trial
and heard the evidence.
Smith v. Shelton, 569 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tenn. 1978) (citing Reeves
v. Catignani, 7 S.W.2d 38, 39 (Tenn. 1928)).
We have heretofore determined that the record does
contain material evidence to support the jury’s findings that
Superior and Twombley violated the THRA and that Twombley is
liable to Steele for his outrageous conduct/intentional
infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff. By the same
token, our review of the record persuades us that there is
material evidence to support the amount of compensatory damages
awarded by the jury, as remitted by the trial court. The jury
obviously accredited Steele’s testimony to the effect that she
had been harassed for an extended period and raped by Twombley.
Although the award was high in relation to Steele’s actual and
anticipated medical expenses -- approximately $18,500 -- we
cannot say that the pain, suffering and other damages caused by
Twombley’s actions did not justify an award of $850,000. Steele
testified that, as a result of the harassment and rape, she has
lost weight and suffers from headaches and flashbacks. She
testified that she has not been able to focus well at work, and
that she has also been affected spiritually. She stated that it
is difficult for her to get up in front of a crowd of people,
because she feels that everybody knows what happened to her. The
record indicates that she has changed jobs several times since
being terminated by Superior. Steele testified that, on one
occasion, she passed up a good job opportunity because it
potentially would have required her to work at times with a
26
company where Twombley was then employed. Steele began seeing a
psychiatrist, Dr. Catherine Gyurik, in January, 1994. She was
also treated by a therapist, Kathleen Reilly. In 1996, she began
seeing Dr. Solovey, who observed that she was, among other
things, frightened, anxious, tearful and distraught. At the
time, Steele was also suffering from panic attacks. Dr. Solovey
treated Steele for approximately nine months, but testified that,
in his opinion, she needed an additional two years of treatment.
Accordingly, the defendants’ argument that the amount
of damages warranted a new trial or further remittitur is found
to be without merit.
VI.
Twombley next argues that the trial court erred in
giving the jury an inaccurate charge. In its instructions to the
jury, the trial court stated that, “[a]s a supervisor with a
right to control, in this case, Mr. Twombley, for the purposes of
this charge, is to be considered as an employer as well.”
We acknowledge that the Supreme Court in Carr held that
the THRA’s inclusion of “any person acting as an agent of an
employer” in its definition of “employer” does not impose
individual liability. Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 835. However, we have
already held that the record supports a finding that Twombley is
liable for hostile environment sexual harassment as an aider and
abetter and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
While the quoted charge was erroneous, we do not find that it
27
more probably than not affected the jury’s verdict; therefore,
any error in the trial court’s charge that Twombley was an
“employer” was harmless. Rule 36(b), T.R.A.P.
VII.
Finally, Twombley contends that, because the THRA “does
not apply to [him] as an individual supervisory employee,” the
trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees against him. As we
have previously explained, there is material evidence to support
a finding that Twombley violated the THRA. Accordingly, we find
this issue to be without merit.
VIII.
It results that the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed. Costs on appeal are assessed to the appellants. This
case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the trial
court’s judgment and for collection of costs assessed below, all
pursuant to applicable law.
__________________________
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:
_________________________
Herschel P. Franks, J.
_________________________
William H. Inman, Sr.J.
28
29