Opinion

Wendy Jo Brown v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense

  • 184 F.3d 388
  • 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,966
  • 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 567
  • 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 15704
  • 1999 WL 504814
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jul 14, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Niemeyer
On the bench
Murnaghan, Niemeyer, Motz
Cited by
101 cases

holding that supervisors who violated the employer’s directive that all sexual harassment be reported nonetheless acted reasonably because they (1) “were confronted with a victim who has continuing to work effectively and ... who reported a single incident of harassment perpetrated by a supervisory employee with whom she would have very limited future contact”; (2) “offer[ed] immediate unconditional support to the victim,” (3) suggested that the victim speak with an Equal Employment Opportunity officer; and (4) declined to report the victim’s sexual harassment complaint only after she requested that they not pursue the matter

How later courts described this case

  • holding that supervisors who violated the employer’s directive that all sexual harassment be reported nonetheless acted reasonably because they (1) “were confronted with a victim who has continuing to work effectively and ... who reported a single incident of harassment perpetrated by a supervisory employee with whom she would have very limited future contact”; (2) “offer[ed] immediate unconditional support to the victim,” (3) suggested that the victim speak with an Equal Employment Opportunity officer; and (4) declined to report the victim’s sexual harassment complaint only after she requested that they not pursue the matter
  • stating that an employer is entitled to assert the affirmative defense where there is no evidence that the plaintiff suffered a tangible employment action at the “hands” of the alleged harasser because the alleged harasser “simply took no part in any decision to hire, fire, discharge, transfer or reassign [plaintiff], or in any way to alter her employment benefits”
  • finding that the defendant employer took reasonable actions to correct an employee’s sexually harassing behavior in part because of the restraining order on the alleged harasser, the employer’s prompt investigation of the alleged harasser, and the employer’s support for the employee who allegedly was harassed
  • concluding that no tangible employment action was taken when the alleged harasser "took no part in any decision to hire, fire, discharge, transfer, or reassign [the subordinate], or in any way to alter her employment benefits"

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge,

concurring in the judgment:

I agree that the district court should be affirmed in this case and therefore concur in the judgment.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.