Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—11th Cir.: Employee who won at trial on assault claims against harassers fails to revive claims against employer, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The jury found sufficient evidence that two HR managers sexually assaulted the employee, but not that they sexually harassed her, and she waived her right to challenge the verdict on inconsistency grounds.

A nurse who resigned from her job at Koch Foods subsidiary after a female HR manager and a male HR manager allegedly sexually assaulted her in the female HR manager’s garage and forced her to watch them perform a sex act, and who subsequently brought a myriad of claims against both the employer and the HR managers that were resolved either in pre-trial proceedings or after a trial, convinced the Eleventh Circuit not to overturn the jury verdict against the HR managers on her claims of assault and battery. However, the appeals court rejected her bid to overturn the jury verdict in favor of her employer on her Title VII hostile work environment claim since she waived her right to challenge the verdict on inconsistency grounds and it was not against the weight of the evidence (Gray v. Koch Foods, Inc., No. 22-13214 (11th Cir. July 15, 2025)).

After-hours sexual encounter. The nurse worked in the safety department of a Koch Foods subsidiary’s chicken processing facility in Alabama. She claimed that on the night of Saturday, November 14, 2015, the female HR manager invited her to her house to talk with her and the male HR manager about a work-related matter. When she arrived, another employee brought her to the garage and left. After a short conversation about work, the female HR manager allegedly touched her in a sexual manner, and then pulled her up to dance with her and the male HR manager. The two then “sandwiched” her between the two of them and the male HR manager kissed her. After she declined their invitation to join them in group sex, the female HR manager allegedly performed oral sex on the male HR manager, and the nurse then left.

Continued at work. The nurse claimed that about a week later, the female HR manager called her into her private office, walked over to her, and pressed her breasts against her. She backed away and told her she was not interested. The HR manager then continued to invite her to her house, but she refused each time.

Written warning. In March 2016, the male HR manager told her that the female HR manager would be supervising her moving forward. About three weeks later, the female HR manager issued her a written warning concerning her alleged failure to report two recent absences.

Files EEOC charge and resigns. She filed an EEOC charge on April 18, 2016, and resigned 11 days later. Afterwards, the male HR manager filed a complaint about her with the state’s nursing board claiming she refused to properly treat an employee with a head wound. The nursing board found that the complaint had merit and admonished her, and the nurse filed a second EEOC charge.

Lawsuit. She later sued, alleging a myriad of Title VII claims against the employer as well as tort claims against both the employer and the two HR managers. After the court disposed of some claims on summary judgment and the HR managers moved to dismiss their counterclaims with prejudice, a trial was held on the nurse’s Title VII hostile work environment claim against the employer and her tort claims against the HR managers.

Jury verdict. The jury rendered a verdict against the nurse on all her Title VII claims against the employer as well as her invasion of privacy and outrage claims against the HR managers. However, it ruled in her favor on her claims for assault and battery and awarded her $5,000 in compensatory and $20,000 in punitive damages against each HR manager, for a total of $50,000.

Costs awards. The court then taxed her costs against the HR managers due to judgments entered against them on the assault and battery claims and their voluntary dismissal with prejudice of their counterclaims. Conversely, the court taxed the nurse for the employer’s costs due to judgment entered in their favor on all claims the jury heard. Following the court’s disposition of post-trial motions, all parties appealed.

Assault and battery. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the HR managers’ contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict against them for assault and battery. The nurse needed to establish that they intentionally touched her “in a harmful or offensive manner,” which Alabama courts have found includes unwelcome touching with “sexual overtones.” The nurse made this showing as to each HR manager based on her testimony at trial as to what occurred during the garage incident. In particular, she stated that she removed the female HR manager’s hand from her leg, tried to remove herself from between their bodies as they “sandwiched” her, and she was uncomfortable after they propositioned her for group sex and performed a sex act.

Punitive damages. She also presented clear and convincing evidence to sustain the verdict for punitive damages against them. Evidence of “circumstances of aggravation” included the “unequal, intimidating power dynamic” since the two both worked in HR and the fact that she was outnumbered.

Verdict as to employer stands. On the other hand, the Eleventh Circuit rejected her contention that she should have been granted a new trial on her sexual harassment claim against the employer. Because the jury rendered its verdict on the Title VII claim based on its determination that neither HR manager harassed her because of her sex, she focused on that inconsistency with the verdict on the assault and battery claim. However, she waived her ability to contest the verdicts as inconsistent by failing to raise the argument until her post-trial motions, which was too late.

She also failed to show that the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The HR managers and the employee who had initially greeted her at the house the night of the incident all provided testimony that contradicted many of her contentions, and a reasonable jury could have credited their testimony and rejected her version of the events. And because the jury’s verdict on the hostile work environment claim stood, she also could not revive her constructive discharge claim, which the district court dismissed on summary judgment.

Prevailing party and costs. Finally, the district court did not err in treating the nurse as the prevailing party against the HR managers by awarding her costs against them, nor did it err in treating the employer as the prevailing party against the nurse by awarding costs against her.

The case is No. 22-13214.

Judge: Wilson, C.

Attorneys: Heather Newsom Leonard (Heather Leonard) for Ka'Toria Gray. Marion F. Walker (Fisher Phillips) for David Birchfield and Melissa McDickinson. Rachel V. Barlotta (Baker Donelson Berman Caldwell & Berkowitz) for Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC and Koch Foods, LLC.

Companies: Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC; Koch Foods, LLC

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination Procedure RemediesDamages StateLawClaims TortClaims EvidenceDiscovery AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews GCNNews