in cases without evidence that a tort was committed, “the Alabama Supreme Court has explained that an employer may not be held directly liable on a theory of negligent supervision or training because no [underlying] tort occurred.”
How later courts described this case
- in cases without evidence that a tort was committed, “the Alabama Supreme Court has explained that an employer may not be held directly liable on a theory of negligent supervision or training because no [underlying] tort occurred.”
- “It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether a reasonable jury could find that Kurtts was constructively discharged [in the context of a retaliation claim].”
- “In a sexual harassment case based on a constructive discharge, in addition to the elements of sexual harassment, the employee must also show ‘that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response.’ ”
- an employer need not “interview every witness deemed critical by the complainant” so long as it makes clear it will “investigate the allegations and arrive at a reasonably fair estimate of the truth”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDERSON,
concurring:
With one observation, I concur in the per curiam opinion. My reading of the record reveals that there is little or no evidence that Kurtts’s decision to resign was made before Oviedo asked if she wanted her final paycheck. In any event, there clearly are genuine issues of fact in that regard. A reasonable jury could find that Oviedo’s question posed a Hobson’s choice and was not a reasonable response to Kurtts’s complaint. Thus, I agree that there remain genuine issues of fact as to whether CSG exercised reasonable care in responding to Kurtts’s complaint.