Dive Brief:
- A Texas jury ordered SkyWest Airlines to pay $2 million in punitive damages and $170,000 for emotional harm to a female parts clerk who alleged sexual discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Nov. 22.
- EEOC filed the lawsuit, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., in 2022. The jury’s verdict “is the largest jury trial award ever obtained by the EEOC in the Northern District of Texas,” according to the agency, but was reduced to $300,000 in keeping with Title VII’s statutory caps on damages.
- In a statement emailed to HR Dive, SkyWest said it disagreed with the verdict and would be filing an appeal. “SkyWest does not tolerate any form of harassment in the workplace,” it added.
Dive Insight:
The case involved an employee who worked for SkyWest for 12 years in a variety of roles. The issues began when she moved to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and began working as a parts clerk in 2019.
According to the complaint, filed by EEOC on Aug. 17, 2022, the worker was subjected to sexual harassment by co-workers, including sexual comments, jokes, gestures, comments “making light of rape,” and intimations that the worker could engage in sex work.
After a few weeks, the worker reported the comments to her supervisor, who allegedly warned her that any action he took to address the issues would “put an even larger target on her back,” according to the complaint.
The worker took an unpaid medical leave of absence from late October through early December to care for her mental health due to the “pervasive atmosphere” of sexual harassment, but she alleged that SkyWest’s culture had not changed upon her return.
After she submitted more complaints, the employee relations manager eventually placed the worker on paid administrative leave and conducted an investigation. The investigation concluded in early February and resulted in a recommendation that all employees take sexual harassment training.
In May, the worker contacted the employee relations manager for an update and was told she could not return until all workers had undergone the training. She resigned shortly after because the airline “failed to return her to work and ceased to communicate with her about any reasonably specific date that she could expect to safely return,” according to the complaint.
EEOC’s lawsuit charged the airline with sex discrimination for maintaining a hostile work environment and with retaliation for making complaints, both violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The jury found that SkyWest employees harassed the worker because of her sex, and that SkyWest knew and failed to take prompt remedial action; however, they did not agree with EEOC’s allegations of retaliation, finding the airline did not take an adverse employment action against the employee when it placed her on indefinite leave, according to court documents.
Employers can help themselves avoid discrimination lawsuits by having a strong harassment policy in place. EEOC has released guidance for developing such a policy, with recommendations that include communicating the policy to all employees, clarifying the conduct that is prohibited, explaining the complaint process and providing a “prompt, impartial and thorough” investigation.
What qualifies as “prompt”? While the definition can vary depending on circumstances, law firm Fisher Phillips explored the question in June in response to the agency’s 2024 harassment guidance. One day is prompt action, and two months is likely not, EEOC has said. Two weeks, when dealing with a severe allegation like physical touching, is also not prompt.
“From a practical standpoint, in defending charges or lawsuits alleging workplace harassment, few things are more challenging than having to explain an employer’s (including even a single supervisor’s) inaction in the face of knowledge of potentially improper conduct,” Fisher Phillips wrote. “Conversely, employers who act promptly in response to such concerns are generally well positioned to avoid or defend such claims.”
