Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—N.D. Ind.: Employee’s failure to report supervisor’s sexual remarks bolstered Faragher-Ellerth defense, (Jul 11, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Because the employer had an effective anti-harassment policy in place and the employee failed to act promptly to notify it about the harassment, there was no basis for employer liability.

A RV manufacturing company won’t be held liable for a supervisor’s alleged sexually harassing remarks to a female employee because, even if she could show the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive, the Faragher-Ellerth defense applied. Granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment on her Title VII hostile work environment claim, a federal district court in Indiana found that the employer had an effective anti-harassment policy in place and acted reasonably in preventing the conduct, and the employee never gave it the opportunity to correct the conduct until after she resigned. Moreover, because she failed to demonstrate the employer failed to reasonably accommodate her disability following a workplace accident which resulted in several months of light duty she was provided, her ADA claim also failed (Woods v. Keystone RV Company, No. 3:23-cv-01007-DRL (N.D. Ind. July 7, 2025)).

Inappropriate remarks. The employee began working at the RV manufacturing plant on August 31, 2021, where her husband had been working for eleven years. They both reported to the same supervisor, who allegedly began making inappropriate comments to her such as, “If you would let me touch you, I would” and “I’m going to be your first white boyfriend.” She treated the remarks as a joke and never reported them.

Restrictions following workplace injury. On January 6, 2022, she was involved in a workplace accident and taken to the hospital by ambulance. The employer referred her to a doctor who cleared her to return to light-duty work, and her supervisor complied with the restrictions by having her unwrap glass and take breaks as needed. However, she complained the work still required physical labor that caused her pain.

More comments. When she texted him that she needed to take off work from January 17 through January 20, he told her to get well “darling.” When she texted that that she would have to get further testing because she was still in pain, he responded, “Ya but you are still beautiful” and “I want you back to your incredible self.” She again did not complain out of fear of retaliation.

Complaint about light duty. After her doctor removed some of her work restrictions on January 20, she complained to the workers’ compensation (WC) specialist that she believed she was “misdiagnosed” and remarked that light duty was “a joke.” The WC specialist told her to reach out if her assignments were causing increased pain and approved her for treatment by an orthopedic specialist who restricted her to “seated work only.” Afterwards, her supervisor allowed her to perform work she could perform at her desk.

After her seated work restrictions were lifted on February 28, the employer allowed her to ride in a golf cart to assist the parts counter. At some point her supervisor saw her using a massager and said, “Oh, so that’s how you like it? You like it nice and hard.” She said “[e]nough” and walked away but did not complain to HR.

Lawyer’s complaint. In late March, her doctor switched her back to “seated work only,” and the employer assigned her to shredding paper, which she found loud, annoying, bright, and “extremely uncomfortable.” Her orthopedic specialist then lightened her restrictions again, but her lawyer complained that the company was not complying with her restriction of “sit down work only.” The WC specialist personally went to the plant to confirm that the company was complying with her restrictions.

Quits. In May, the orthopedic specialist released her back to work for regular duties, but she was still in pain and expressed that she wanted a second opinion. After her supervisor told her that he thought it was all in her head, she went to car. He then pulled up aside her and she expressed frustration with the lack of concern for her accident and his sexual harassment and relayed that she was quitting. He reported this to the HR manager, who investigated and ultimately determined that he had not violated the anti-harassment policy but counseled him about his inappropriate language. She also invited the employee to reapply, but she choose not to do so.

Employer liability. The court rejected the employee’s contention that the supervisor’s harassment led to a tangible adverse employment action since her resignation was voluntarily, and the supervisor’s remarks—some of which she testified she took as jokes—didn’t suggest a pervasively hostile work environment sufficient to justify a constructive discharge, “particularly when the law typically contemplates that a worker remain on the job and utilize appropriate means to alert the employer to the issue.” The court also rejected her attempt to invoke vicarious liability by framing her supervisor as the employer’s proxy or alter-ego.

Faragher-Ellerth defense. The court also found that even if she could show the supervisor’s harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive, the Faragher-Ellerth defense applied. First, no reasonable jury could conclude that the employer failed to exercise reasonable care to the harassment. Its anti-harassment policy, contained in its employee handbook stated that “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, other verbal and physical conduct, or electronic communications of a sexual nature” could violate the policy and directed anyone who believed they were being harassed to “advise the offender that his or her behavior is offensive and request that it stop[] immediately” Those who weren’t comfortable talking to the harasser or had “done this and continue[d] to be subjected to the offensive behavior” were “required to report the behavior promptly to their immediate Supervisor, the Human Resources Department, or any other member of management” The policy then provided for investigation by HR and confidentiality to the extent possible.

Here, the employee undisputedly failed to use the corrective opportunities provided to her as the policy outlined a very clear procedure for reporting harassment which she chose not to follow. In particular, she chose not to go to HR, even when the policy provided for confidentiality to the extent possible during the investigation. Indeed, when the supervisor reported her complaint to HR after she quit, a prompt investigation ensued, and he received counseling about his remarks.

No failure to accommodate. The employee also failed to advance her failure to accommodate claim under the ADA since the employer demonstrated that it had always complied with the employee’s restrictions as outlined by medical providers, and she never requested any other accommodations. Her supervisor assigned her light work in accordance with her medical records, the employer continued to modify her work as her restrictions evolved, and there was no evidence supporting her claim that the employer threatened her job.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-01007-DRL.

Judge: Leichty, D.

Attorneys: Nicholas A. Snow (Harris Law Firm) for Kesia Woods. Melissa A. Macchia (Taft Stettinius & Hollister) for Keystone RV Co.

Companies: Keystone RV Co.

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge CoverageLiability IndianaNews