Glenda Stetner v. City of Quincy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENDA STETNER, a married individual, No. 17-35067
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00210-RMP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF QUINCY, a Washington
municipal corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,** District
Judge.
Glenda Stetner appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of her former employer, the City of Quincy, Washington, on her claims of
discrimination in the form of sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Because
the district court correctly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material
fact and that the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm on de
novo review. See Dawson v. Entek Int’l, 630 F.3d 928, 934 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting
de novo standard of review).
“Notice of . . . sexually harassing conduct triggers an employer’s duty to
take prompt corrective action that is ‘reasonably calculated to end the
harassment.’” Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184, 1192 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 875 (9th Cir. 2001)). An
investigation “can itself be a powerful factor in deterring future harassment.” Id. at
1193. When an employer opens a “sexual harassment investigation, the employer
puts all employees on notice that it takes such allegations seriously and will not
tolerate harassment in the workplace.” Id.
Here, when Stetner reported a co-worker’s harassing conduct to her
supervisor, the supervisor immediately relayed the complaint to the city
administrator and the City promptly began an investigation. Within three days, the
City placed the alleged harasser on administrative leave and did not allow him to
return to the workplace without first calling in to obtain approval. Additionally,
his conduct was reported to the police and criminal charges were later filed against
him. Stetner never returned to work after reporting the harassment, and the alleged
2
harasser resigned five weeks after being placed on administrative leave. No further
harassment occurred.
On these undisputed facts, the City’s response was adequate as a matter of
law. The City took immediate action; the harassment ended; and the City’s
response was likely to “persuade potential harassers to refrain from unlawful
conduct.” Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 882 (9th Cir. 1991). Stetner has cited
no precedent requiring more remedial action than the City undertook under the
circumstances of this case.
AFFIRMED.
3