Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—N.D. Tex.: EEOC’s trial victory against SkyWest Airlines upheld, three-year injunction issued, (Mar 6, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The court was not persuaded that “the same policy, administered by many of the same personnel, establishes that SkyWest’s Title VII violations likely will not recur in the future.”

In a Title VII hostile work environment lawsuit brought by the EEOC and a former parts clerk against SkyWest airlines, a federal court denied the airline’s bid to overturn a jury verdict awarding the employee compensatory and punitive damages, concluding that there was sufficient evidence that management failed to promptly and effectively address her allegations that coworkers and the maintenance supervisor were sexually harassing her by making crude and sexually explicit comments, jokes, and gestures. The court also granted the EEOC’s bid for injunctive relief, finding that despite the airline’s anti-harassment policy and reporting procedure, upper management did not promptly learn of the employee’s allegations, and when it did eventually respond its HR investigation “was less than comprehensive and that resulted in relatively lenient remedial measures” (EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01807-D (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2025)).

Jury verdict. The lawsuit claimed that during the employee’s tenure with SkyWest as a parts clerk at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, management and HR failed to promptly address her complaints that her coworkers and the maintenance supervisor were sexually harassing her by making crude and sexually explicit comments, jokes, and gestures. The EEOC brought this Title VII suit on her behalf (which she joined) alleging hostile work environment (HWE) and retaliation claims. A jury returned a verdict in their favor on the HWE claim and awarded $170,000 in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages, which the court reduced to $130,000 to comply with the statutory cap.

Punitive damages upheld. At the outset, the court denied SkyWest’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, which argued that punitive damages were not warranted. The airline did not dispute that the supervisor subjected the employee to inappropriate comments and gestures, and she testified at length about his harassing conduct. Moreover, the HR manager testified that all employees receive computer-based training on the sexual harassment policy upon hire, if their job code changes to a leadership position, and then annually. The policy also made clear that discrimination based on a protected characteristic violates federal law. Thus, a reasonable jury could have inferred that the supervisor—a SkyWest managerial employee—was aware that discriminating against the clerk based on her sex violated federal law, and therefore that he acted with malice or reckless indifference to her federally protected rights.

A jury could have reasonably inferred that the airline’s investigation of her complaints was too ineffective to constitute a good-faith effort at complying with Title VII. In particular, the record suggested that the HR manager did not interview many individuals implicated by the employee’s allegations, did not subject those individuals whom she did interview to fulsome questioning, did not follow her standard practice of writing an investigative summary, and subjected the individuals whom she found to have violated SkyWest’s sexual harassment policy to lenient corrective action—or in one case no corrective action at all.

Text messages. The court also rejected the airline’s contention that it was entitled to a new trial because the court erred in admitting into evidence certain text messages in which the employee described her experience working at the airline to her husband and others. The court properly overruled the airline’s hearsay objection since the texts were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted but rather as circumstantial evidence that she had experienced sexual harassment. For example, a text message to her husband stating that “[the shipment] is out near Dallas[,] apparently where [the coworkers with whom I will be traveling are] going to ‘sell me’ for prostitution,” was offered as evidence that the coworkers had made such comments, not as evidence that they actually intended to sell her for prostitution, explained the court.

No duty to mitigate emotional harm. The court’s refusal to give the airline’s requested jury instruction stating that the employee was required to mitigate her emotional harm was also not prejudicial error warranting a new trial. “SkyWest’s reading of Title VII does not support the inference that Title VII claimants have a duty to mitigate their emotional harm,” explained the court. “This is so because the canon of construction that SkyWest relies upon does not apply when the relevant common law is not ‘well-established,’ which the supposed common-law duty to mitigate emotional harms plainly is not.”

Injunctive relief. Despite SkyWest’s objections, the court also granted the EEOC’s bid for injunctive relief, concluding that the airline “has not met its burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there is no reasonable probability that it will violate Title VII in the future.” Despite having an anti-harassment policy and reporting procedure in place, upper management did not promptly learn of the employee’s allegations—although coworkers and managers participated in, witnessed, or otherwise learned of the alleged harassment. And the record suggested that when upper management did learn of her allegations and the failures in its reporting system, it responded with an investigation that “was less than comprehensive and that resulted in relatively lenient remedial measures.” “SkyWest now represents to the court that the same policy, administered by many of the same personnel, establishes that SkyWest’s Title VII violations likely will not recur in the future. The court is not persuaded by clear and convincing evidence.”

The court therefore enjoined the airline from subjecting any parts or maintenance department employees to a sex-based HWE and directed the airline to create and distribute a protocol for effectively responding to discrimination and harassment. The court also ordered annual training and the posting and distribution of a Title VII notice in the department. In addition, the airline must notify the EEOC within 30 days of receipt of any complaint of sexual harassment within the department. However, while the EEOC requested a five-year injunction, the court ordered that these measures remain in place for a period of three years, finding the shorter period “sufficient but not greater than necessary.”

The case is No. 3:22-cv-01807-D.

Judge: Fitzwater, S.

Attorneys: Alexa Rae Lang for the EEOC. Erin Elizabeth Drumm (Fisher & Phillips) for SkyWest Airlines Inc.

Companies: SkyWest Airlines Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination EvidenceDiscovery Procedure RemediesDamages TexasNews