By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 3, 2011//
Employment
Race discrimination; employer liability
Where an employer promptly investigated all the plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination, it is not liable for a hostile work environment created by co-workers.
“The catering department was undoubtedly an unpleasant place for Vance between 2005 and 2007. Yet the record reflects that Ball State promptly investigated each complaint that she filed, calibrating its response to the results of the investigation and the severity of the alleged conduct. As we have said before, prompt investigation is the ‘hallmark of reasonable corrective action.’ Cerros II, 398 F.3d at 954. This is not a case where the employer began to ignore an employee’s complaints as time went on. Ball State investigated Vance’s complaint against Davis in 2007 with the same vigor as it did her complaint in 2005. Of course, the ideal result of an employee’s complaint would be that the harassment ceases. But Title VII does not require an employer’s response to ‘successfully prevent[] subsequent harassment,’ though it should be reasonably calculated to do so. Cerros II, 398 F.3d at 954 (quoting Savino v. C.P. Hall Co., 199 F.3d 925, 933 (7th Cir. 1999)). In this case, we conclude that the undisputed facts demonstrate that there is no basis for employer liability.”
Affirmed.
08-3568 Vance v. Ball State University
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Wood, J.