Setser et al v. Idaho Home Health & Hospice/LHC Group

Filing 55

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant LHC's Motion for Summary Judgment 28 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with this Memorandum Decision and Order. The jury trial shall proceed on the sexual harass ment claim and Defendant LHC's alleged affirmative defense on at 9:30 a.m. on 5/13/2014 at the Federal Courthouse in Pocatello, Idaho. Defendant LHC's Motion to Strike 39 and Plaintiff Setser's Motion to Strike 43 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JORDAN SETSER, individually,
Case No. 4:12-CV-00444-EJL-REB
Plaintiff,
AMENDED MEMORANDUM
DECISION AND ORDER

v.
IDAHO HOME HEALTH & HOSPICE/
LHC GROUP, LLC; and
CHRISTOPHER EVANS, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants.

Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Defendant Idaho Home
Health & Hospice/LHC Group, LLC’s (LHC) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 28)
and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 39) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 43). Having fully
reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay,
and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be
significantly aided by oral argument, this matter shall be decided on the record before this
Court without oral argument.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jordan Setser (Setser) was hired as a registered nurse (RN) for LHC on
February 4, 2011 for LHC’s home health care services branch in Rupert, Idaho. Setser
started working around February 24, 2011. LHC is headquartered in Louisiana and has
approximately 8,500 employees in twenty-six states. Chris Evans (Evans) was the branch
manager and was the person who hired Setser. He was also her supervisor. There were
not any human resources personnel located in the Rupert branch office.
Setser was provided an Employee Handbook and she acknowledged that she had
read and understood LHC’s Standards of Behavior and the Employee Handbook prior to
her actually starting work. (Declaration of Renae Delahoussaye, Dkt. 31-2, Ex. 1).
The Employee Handbook has a section entitled “Harassment” which provides as follows:
LHC Group prohibits all forms of harassment of its employees by
any other employee or third party. Accordingly, all employees are asked to
conduct themselves in a professional manner at all time and refrain from
engaging in conduct which might be construed as offensive or harassing to
others. Prohibited conduct includes any form of physical or verbal abuse or
harassment on any basis including race, sex, age, religion, disability,
national origin or any other protected status.
In order to avoid any potential problems or misunderstandings in this
area, employees are asked to conduct themselves in a professional and
courteous manner at all times, and those who find the conduct of others
offensive should immediately make it clear to the offending person that the
find the conduct offensive.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Any employee who feels he/she has been subjected to harassment
in violation of this policy is encouraged to immediately and
confidentially report it to a manager or Human Resources. Incidents of
alleged harassment will be promptly investigated as confidentially as
possible and appropriate action will be taken. If management is not
informed of conduct which violated this policy, it cannot address such
conduct.
If LHC Group determines that an employee is guilty of harassing
another individual, appropriate action will be taken against the offending
employee, up to and including termination of employment. If harassment is
engaged in by a person other than an employee, management will attempt to
take appropriate action to remedy the problem.
LHC Group prohibits any form of retaliation against any employee for
filing a bona fide complaint under this policy or for assisting in a complaint
investigation.
Id., Ex. 2 (emphasis added).
It is undisputed that Setser also attended new employee orientation training with a
Rupert office co-worker on April 4, 2011. Id., Ex. 3. It is unclear from the record the
method this training was provided – in person, online, webinar, etc. Regardless of the
form, it is undisputed Setser signed the attendance sheet for the training. The training
was taught by Employee Relations Coordinator Ms. Delahoussaye and included training
on the sexual harassment policy. (Dec. of Delahoussaye, Dkt. 31, p.3, ¶ 9).
When Setser started work, Evans invited Setser and another new employee Tiffany
Sanchez to lunch. Ms. Sanchez had a conflict and did not attend the lunch. At the lunch,
Setser claims Evans told her in the future he would like to see her become a lead and
supervise others. Evans also discussed the fact that Idaho is a right to work state, so he
did not need a reason to let Setser (or any employee) go. There is nothing in the record to
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

suggest these comments at lunch were made to threaten Setser as no sexual harassment
had occurred at that point in time. Moreover, the “at will” employment status was
acknowledged by Setser when she initialed that she had received and read the Employee
Handbook. (Dkt. 31-2, Ex. 1).
There are three specific alleged incidents of sexual harassment by Evans. The first
incident was on March 15, 2011 when Setser was completing an online computer training
course and Evans came in the room, began rubbing Setser’s shoulders, then started
disparaging his wife and finally leaned in and kissed Setser. Setser told Evans that was
not right and she left the building shortly after the incident. The next day, she again told
Evans his conduct was not appropriate.
The second incident occurred on or about April 12, 2011 when Setser was in
Evans’ office discussing how disappointing her birthday had been the day before. Evans
came around his desk, grabbed Setser’s hands, pulled her close for a hug, and tried to kiss
her. Setser told Evans again this conduct was wrong and asked him what his wife would
think. Setser testified Evans tried to kiss her again, tried to put his hand up her shirt and
also tried to unbutton her pants in addition to pointing to his crotch and making
inappropriate comments.1 Setser broke away, stepped around him and left the office.
The third incident was on or about May 3, 2011. Setser was doing some
1

LHC objects to the inclusion of these facts that were included in the allegations in the
Complaint, but Setser did not bring up during her deposition. Setser restated these additional
details of the second incident in her declaration in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. (Dec. of Setser, Dkt. 35-2). In viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff,
the Court will consider these additional details in resolving the motion for summary judgment.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

paperwork and Evans came behind her, started talking to her and then reached in to kiss
Setser on the neck. Setser stood up, flung her chair backwards and yelled at him that she
was not the office tramp and did not want to be looked at as a tramp. No other employees
were present in the office. Evans left the building. Evans texted Setser and said if Setser
did not turn him in, he would quit. Setser agreed to these terms and said she would give
him some time to leave willingly. After the third incident, Evans did not quit or take
steps to leave LHC.
Setser claims the hostile work environment shook her up, caused her to break
down crying, made her fear being around Evans and that she might lose her job. There is
no evidence that Evans failed to promote, demoted or changed Setser’s job benefits as a
result of her failing to return his affection or complaining to him about his conduct.
There is no evidence Evans gave Setser a poor performance evaluation.
When Evans did not resign as promised, Setser claims he began to act
increasingly hostile toward her. Setser claims Evans told her not to come to the office
when he was there implying he was afraid he might try to make a move on her and this
caused her difficulty in completing her job duties as she needed supplies for patients but
did not feel comfortable going to the office to get the supplies. Evans indicated that the
patients would be taken care of, but Setser claims the patients were not taken care of so
this made her job more difficult. Setser claims she began making excuses not to come
into the office and was eventually forced to resign as she had to watch her back when she
was at the office in fear of Evans coming up on her from behind like he had done before.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Setser alleges Evans asked her to take his on-call shift over Memorial Day weekend
because he was disgruntled with her.2
Setser did not report any of the incidents or other conduct to LHC human resources
or any other manager besides her complaints about the conduct directly to Evans. LHC
had no complaints from any other employees regarding Evans’ behavior. Plaintiff cites to
the Deposition of Marcus Macip of LHC for support that reporting the harassment to
Setser’s manager was sufficient under LHC policies and Evans’ failure to report the
harassment was his negligence, not Setser’s.3
Setser emailed Evans a two week notice of her resignation on May 20, 2011. No
mention is made of work conditions in her email. The last day Setser had shift work (in
part due to her father’s medical needs) was May 16, 2011. On May 25, 2011, counsel for
Setser sent Evans an email indicating that he represented Setser and that she had been
2

The Court is viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, but does not
necessarily find Setser can prove by a preponderance Evans was trying to be difficult in offering
Setser the on-call shift on Memorial weekend. Evans is named as a defendant in this action, but
there is no evidence he was ever served with the Complaint and he never appeared in the
litigation. The incoming text messages recovered from Setser’s phone seem to indicate Evans
was not trying to make her job difficult, but was trying to give her a final day of employment to
turn in equipment and other company property. Regardless, Setser’s last day of shift work was
May 16, 2011, so she did not take the requested holiday on-call shift. The Court notes Plaintiff
objects to the consideration of the texts from Evans but does not deny the texts were from Evans’
phone number. For purposes of this motion for summary judgment the texts will be considered
simply to establish it is contested as to whether or not the on-call shift request for Memorial Day
was a change in her job duties.
3

The Court cannot locate the cited deposition of Marcus Macip in the record. References
to depositions without a reference to the docket number and page number where that portion of
the deposition is located makes it difficult for the Court to review the cited materials. The Court
was able to locate Ex. 3 from Macip’s deposition, but not the actual cited portion of the
deposition. See Dkt. 35-6.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

subject to sexual harassment in her employment such that she could no longer work with
Evans. On May 26, 2011, Setser’s counsel transmitted a letter by email alleging sexual
harassment.
The emails to Evans were turned over to the LHC Human Resources who promptly
initiated an investigation into the sexual harassment allegations. Evans was terminated
from his employment for performance reasons on June 30, 2011.
On June 6, 2011, Setser started work at her new job with Liberty Dialysis as a RN.
Setser maintains she did not have internet access away from work and did not
know how to contact LHC’s human resources department. Setser admits she had received
sexual harassment training from a prior employer when she worked in Las Vegas.
On August 28 2010, Setser filed her Complaint in federal court alleging sexual
harassment, hostile work environment, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against the named defendants. Defendant LHC has
moved for summary judgment on all causes of action. Defendant Evans has not appeared
in the lawsuit and it is unclear from the record if he was ever served with the Complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or
defense, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the
summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims . . . .”
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is “not a disfavored procedural
shortcut,” but is instead the “principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient claims or
defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant
unwarranted consumption of public and private resources.” Id. at 327.
“[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not
defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. See
id. at 248.
The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if that party shows that each
issue of material fact is not or cannot be disputed. To show the material facts are not in
dispute, a party may cite to particular parts of materials in the record, or show that the
materials cited do not establish the presence of a genuine dispute, or that the adverse party
is unable to produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1)(A)&(B); see T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d
626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). The Court must consider “the
cited materials,” but it may also consider “other materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(3).
Material used to support or dispute a fact must be “presented in a form that would
be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Affidavits or declarations submitted
in support of or opposition to a motion “must be made on personal knowledge, set out
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is
competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
The Court does not determine the credibility of affiants or weigh the evidence set
forth by the non-moving party. All inferences which can be drawn from the evidence
must be drawn in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. Serv., 809
F.2d at 630-31 (internal citation omitted).
Rule 56(e)(3) authorizes the Court to grant summary judgment for the moving
party “if the motion and supporting materials–including the facts considered
undisputed–show that the movant is entitled to it.” The existence of a scintilla of evidence
in support of the non-moving party’s position is insufficient. Rather, “there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.

ANALYSIS
1. Sexual Harassment Claims
Count 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges sexual harassment and Count 2 alleges
hostile work environment. LHC maintains the two causes of action are both sexual
harassment claims, not two separate claims. The Court agrees. A hostile work
environment claim is a type of sexual harassment claim under Title VII and the applicable
Idaho Code. Heustis v. Orsi, 2007 WL 1797636 (D. Idaho 2007); Faragher v. City of
Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it “an unlawful employment
practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
Title VII prohibits sexual harassment by a supervisor whether it is based on a “quid pro
quo” concept or the overall work environment. “Quid pro quo” harassment exists when
employment is dependent on the provision of sexual favors to a supervisor. A hostile
work environment can constitute sexual harassment when the work environment is
unpleasant and unacceptable based upon the consideration of sex (e.g., jokes, language,
unwanted touching). An employer is vicariously liable for the supervisor’s actions if there
is a “tangible employment action” taken against the victimized employee in either
situation. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington
Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). If there is no tangible employment action
against the complaining employee, an employer may raise an affirmative defense to a
sexual harassment claim. Id.
A. Setser’s Prima Facie Case
To make a prima facie case of a hostile work environment based on sexual
harassment against an employer, a plaintiff must show: (1) he or she was subjected to
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature; (2) the conduct was unwelcome; and
(3) the conduct was objectively and subjectively so severe or pervasive as to alter the
conditions of employment and create a discriminatory abusive working environment.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

Craig v. M & O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007).
LHC argues Setser has failed to establish the three incidents were sufficient to
qualify as “severe or pervasive. LHC says one kiss, two attempted kisses and hug do not
rise to the level of “severe or pervasive” conduct. The Court finds LHC is
oversimplifying the facts of this case.
“Objective hostility is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances
and whether a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the victim would
perceive the workplace as hostile.” Craig at 1055. “[C]onduct must be extreme to amount
to a change in the terms and conditions of employment.” Faragher at 788. Simple
teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not
generally amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
The Supreme Court has held that factors a court may consider are “the frequency of the
discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or
a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s
work performance. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).
In this case, the Court finds Setser has presented undisputed evidence sufficient for
a trier of fact to conclude that Evans’ conduct created a prima facie case for sexual
harassment based upon a hostile work environment. First, it is undisputed Setser was
subjected to verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. Second, the conduct was

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

unwelcome.4 Third, when the incidents described by Plaintiff are viewed from the
perspective of a “reasonable woman,” Evans’ behavior could be found to be severe,
pervasive, threatening, as well as causing interference with Setser’s ability to do her job.
The Court is convinced that the first unwanted touching and kissing of Setser by Evans,
the second unwanted hugging and attempting to kiss Setser by Evans combined with
Evans putting his hand up her shirt and attempting to unbutton the pants of a female
employee is the type of conduct any reasonable person would find created a hostile work
environment. But there is more. Multiple verbal statements he wanted to leave his wife
and be with Setser, unwanted rubbing of Setser’s shoulders on multiple occasions and the
third attempt to kiss her when no other employees were in the office is a hostile
environment that would affect any employee’s ability to feel safe and comfortable doing
their job. Combine these facts with the supervisor’s limiting Setser’s access to the facility
to when Evans was not in the office. This is additional evidence of the environment
interfering with the employee’s work performance. A reasonable juror could find Evans’
sexual conduct altered the conditions of employment and created an abusive working
environment. See Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 99th Cir. 1991).

4

The Court acknowledges Evans maintained in his email to LHC regarding the alleged
sexual harassment that the attraction was not one sided, but taking the facts in a light most
favorable to Plaintiff, Setser has established through her deposition testimony and declaration
that the sexual conduct by Evans was unwelcome. Plaintiff’s counsel notes in his memorandum
that Evans has never been located. (Dkt. 35, p.5).
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

Having found Plaintiff has at least established a prima facie case of a hostile work
environment, the Court must next determine if there was tangible employment action
taken against Setser.
B. Tangible Employment Action
An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for
actionable sexual harassment or a hostile environment created by the employee’s
supervisor. Ellerth at 765. When no tangible employment action is taken, an employer
can raise an affirmative defense to liability and damages. Id. The defense has two
requirements: “(a) the that employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct
promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee
unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities
provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Id.
“A tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment
status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different
responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Ellerth at 761. “A
tangible employment action in most cases inflicts direct economic harm. Id. 763.
LHC argues there was no ‘tangible employment action” taken by Evans or LHC,
therefore, the Court should decide no genuine issues of material fact exist that prevent the
Court from finding LHC has satisfied the two elements of the affirmative defense.
Plaintiff argues she was constructively discharged and this can be considered a “tangible
employment action” making LHC vicariously liable without an affirmative defense.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13

Alternatively, if no tangible employment action is found, Plaintiff argues genuine issues
of material fact remain that prevent the Court from finding as a matter of law LHC has
established the affirmative defense.
Constructive discharge occurs if an employee can prove he or she was subjected
to intolerable working conditions such that a “reasonable person in his/her position would
have felt compelled to resign.” Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141
(2004). In Suders, the Supreme Court held genuine issues of material fact existed
concerning plaintiff’s hostile work environment and her constructive discharge claim. Id.
at 152. “[H]arassment so intolerable as to cause a resignation may be effected through coworker conduct, unofficial supervisory conduct, or official company acts.” Id. at 148.The
Supreme Court attempted to distinguish between supervisor conduct and co-worker
conduct, finding if the sexual harassment is by a co-worker who is not in a supervisory
position, there is less chance of a resignation being deemed a constructive discharge. It is
more likely to be a constructive discharge if a supervisor or company official acts to
encourage the resignation. See Robinson v. Sappington, 351 F. 3d 317 (7th Cir. 1004)
(cited in Suders as opinion with proper analysis of constructive discharge determination
where a judge suggested an employee who was allegedly being sexually harassed by
another judge resign was constructive discharge).
Constructive discharge cannot exist in every case an employee decides to resign
after being sexually harassed. To do so, would eliminate the affirmative defense for
employers established in Faragher/Ellerth. Instead, the case law establishes that in order
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14

for a resignation to equate to a tangible employment action, the work conditions must be
intolerable. The bar for a finding of constructive discharge is set high “because federal
anti-discrimination policies are better served when the employee and employer attack
discrimination within their existing employment relationship, rather than when the
employee walks away and then later litigates whether his employment situation was
intolerable.” Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007).
In determining whether conditions are “intolerable,” the conditions are measured
at the time of the employee’s resignation. Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d
1459, 1465 (9th Cir. 1994) (alleged harasser was fired two and one-half months prior to
employee’s resignation and after employee’s preferred shift at work was restored so there
was no constructive discharge). Waiting until the sexual harassment has ended to resign is
not constructive discharge. Montero v. AGCO Corp. 192 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 1999)
(employee waiting three to four months after harassment ended to resign is not
constructive discharge).
“Working conditions for constructive discharge must be even more egregious than
the high standard for hostile work environment because ‘in the “ordinary case, an
employee is expected to remain employed while seeking redress.’” Tutman v. WBBM-TV,
Inc./CBS, Inc., 209 F.3d 1044,1050 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). An employee has
to show why he had to quit immediately, before he found another job and why his duty to
mitigate damages did not require him to remain. Lindale v. Tokheim Corp., 145 F.3d 953,
956 (7th Cir. 1998).
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15

The Court has reviewed the testimony of Plaintiff in her deposition and her
declaration. Setser states she was “uncomfortable” and fearful of being in the office and
having Evans come up behind her. Setser decided to resign after Evans did not follow
through on his agreement to resign if she agreed not to turn him in. She figured conditions
were not going to change and looked for another job. She never indicates that Evans
made any further sexual advances after May 3, 2011 or that Evans as her supervisor
encouraged her to resign. Evans did not change her job duties. She was not given an
extremely dangerous job to retaliate for spurned advances. See Reed v. MBNA Marketing
Systems, Inc., 333 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2003). There were no simply no changes to the
conditions of employment from the last incident on May 3, 2011 to the date Setser filed
her two week notice. Moreover, she gave two weeks of notice and did not quit outright.
It appears from the record that she gave her notice after she had found other employment.
Clearly, she was willing to continue working after she had given notice of her resignation.
Setser did not quit because she had filed a complaint with the Human Resources
department which was not being investigated. The conduct after May 3, 2011 was not
simply not “ more egregious” than the three incidents that formed the basis of her sexual
harassment claim. Being “uncomfortable” and “fearful” does not create an “intolerable”
work situation. The Court finds no reasonable juror could find that Setser has established
that work conditions on May 20, 2011 were so intolerable that a “reasonable person in
his/her position would have felt compelled to resign.” Pennsylvania State Police v.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 16

Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141 (2004). Her resignation will not be deemed a constructive
discharge, so there was no tangible employment action taken again Setser.

C. Affirmative Defense
Having determined Setser’s resignation was not a constructive discharge, the Court
must now determine if LHC is entitled under the undisputed facts of this case to raise the
affirmative defense provided by Faragher/Ellerth. The first prong of the defense is that
the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually
harassing behavior. Ellerth at 765. The Court acknowledges that there appears to be no
genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a sexual harassment policy which
encourages employees to report sexual harassment and indicates sexual harassment is not
acceptable behavior by any employee. The policy clearly provides a reporting
mechanism and that such complaints will be investigated. In this case, once reported by
Setser’s attorney after her resignation, it is undisputed LHC promptly conducted an
investigation and that Evans was terminated. It is also undisputed that Setser
acknowledged that she had read the policy (although she testified in her deposition that
she did not actually read the Employee Handbook), she attended training by a human
resources employee that included training on the sexual harassment policy (and that
training was approximately one week prior to the second incident), that the policy
provided an employee could report sexual harassment to a manager or the human
resources department. It appears from the undisputed record that for purposes of the
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 17

motion for summary judgment, the first prong has arguably been satisfied by LHC’s
sexual harassment policies and procedures combined with employee training.
As to the second prong of the affirmative defense, the Court finds genuine issues
of material fact exist regarding whether or not Setser acted “unreasonably” in failing to
take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or
to avoid harm otherwise. Ellerth at 765. Setser failed to report the alleged sexual
harassment to the human resources department of LHC and instead only complained to
her manager who was also the harasser. It may not be reasonable for an employee
complaining of the sexual harassment to believe complaining to the very manager who is
sexually harassing said employee would satisfy the goal of allowing an employer to
investigate and respond to complaints of sexual harassment. Especially when the first
complaint to Evans about inappropriate conduct did not stop the sexual harassment.
Moreover, no complaint was filed when the second incident occurred approximately one
week after training by the Human Resources officer.
It may or may not have been unreasonable for Setser to agree to allow Evans to
quit instead of reporting the harassment. But when Evans did not quit, Setser still did not
contact the Human Resources department. This is in light of the fact that the policy
provides for the complaint to alternatively be made to the human resources department.
The jury will have to determine if Setser acted unreasonably when she claims she was not
able to get the phone number for LHC Human Resources department. The fact finders
can also weigh the fact that Setser admits she had been trained regarding sexual
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 18

harassment when she worked for a prior employer, she listed Evans as a reference when
she applied for a new job, and she gave no notice of sexual harassment until after she had
filed her notice of resignation in determining whether Setser acted unreasonably. For all
these reasons, it is clearly disputed as to whether Setser acted unreasonably when she
failed to comply the LHC policy meant to protect her from harm.5

2. Battery
LHC argues Plaintiff has failed to establish the alleged inappropriate actions by
Evans were related to his work assignments. The Court agrees the employer can only be
vicariously liable for intentional torts by its employees when the force is not
“unexpectable by the master.” The employee “must be engaged in some type of work
that is assigned to him or her in the general sense of doing something to serve the
employer.” Richard J. & Esther E. Wooley Trust v. DeBest Plumbing, Inc., 983 p.2d 834,
838 ((Idaho 1999) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228).
Plaintiff argues that Evans was performing his supervisory duties when he kissed,
tried to kiss and hugged Setser. The Court respectfully disagrees that there is evidence
that LHC assigned Evans duties to sexually harass employees as part of his job as a

5

In LHC’s memorandum it argues the New Employee Orientation Binder states “If the
employee is uncomfortable, for whatever reason, with submitting the complaint to the
supervisor, the complaint should be submitted to the Manager of Human Resources.” Dkt. 29,
p.5 (citing to Delahoussaye Declaration, ¶ 7, Ex. 1). The Court could not find this quoted
sentence in the body of Ex. 1 to Delahoussaye Declaration, Dkt. 31-1, which is the
“Acknowledgement [sic] of Company Policies.”
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 19

supervisor. There is no evidence Evans was acting in any other capacity than purely
personal when he kissed and attempted to kiss and hug Plaintiff. There is no respondeat
superior liability when an intentional tort is committed by an employee who “acts with
personal motives in no way connected to the employer’s interest.” Podolan v. Idaho
Legal Aid Servs., Inc., 854 P.2d 280, 288 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). The record before the
Court does not support a finding that Evans was acting on behalf of LHC or in any way
advancing the interests of LHC by sexually harassing Setser. Since LHC had no notice of
sexual harassment prior to Setser leaving LHC employment, it is impossible for LHC to
have known about the sexual abuse and condoned it. The record reflects Evans was
acting for purely personal reasons, not in a work related manner. Therefore, the claim of
battery against LHC must be dismissed as a matter of law.

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
LHC argues the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be
dismissed as Plaintiff has not established the undisputed conduct of Evans rises to the
level of extreme and outrageous and that Plaintiff’s distress was severe. Plaintiff argues a
jury should decide if the conduct rises to a level of extreme and outrageous conduct and
whether Setser’s emotional distress was severe.
In Idaho, the elements for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress are:
(1) the defendant acted intentionally and recklessly; (2) the defendant’s conduct was
extreme and outrageous; (3) there was a casual connection between the wrongful conduct
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 20

and the emotional distress; and (4) the plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe. Alderson
v. Bonner, 132 P.3d 1261, 1267 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). A defendant’s conduct must be
“atrocious and beyond all possible bounds of decency [such] that it would cause an
average member of the community to believe it was outrageous.” Edmondson v. Shearer
Lumber Prods., 75 F.3d 733, 740-41 (Idaho 2003). Intensity and duration of the distress
are also factors to be considered in determining whether the plaintiff’s emotional distress
was severe. Alderson at 1269.
Defendant cites to cases outside the Ninth Circuit for the proposition that “[a]s a
general rule, sexual harassment alone does not rise to the level of outrageousness
necessary to make out a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895, F.2d 1469, 1487 (3rd Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has
provided no case law indicating the type of undisputed sexual contact and attempted
contact in this case rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.
In Yeargain v. Laundy, 2008 WL 314414, *6 (D. Idaho 2008), the court found
unjustifiable conduct does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct. The
court also states that the district court may grant summary judgment when the alleged
facts could not reasonably be regarded as so extreme or outrageous as to permit recovery
for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at *7 (citing McKinley v. Guaranty
Nat’l Ins. Co., 159 P. 3d 884, 891 (Idaho 2007).
In viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court is convinced no
reasonable jury could find that LHC’s conduct was extreme or outrageous. LHC had a
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 21

policy and when informed of the alleged sexual harassment, immediately investigated.
As to LHC being vicariously liable for Evans’ conduct, the Court again finds the alleged
contact does not rise to the level of “atrocious and beyond all possible bounds of decency
[such] that it would cause an average member of the community to believe it was
outrageous.” Edmondson at 741. Moreover, Setser’s claim of crying, being fearful and
being upset does not rise to the level of “severe” emotional distress for an extended
duration. As a matter of law, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is
dismissed.

4. Motions to Strike
The Court has reviewed the contested portions of the declarations in this matter.
The Court has noted in footnotes when it has considered the contested facts. The Court is
allowed to consider all admissible evidence in resolving a motion for summary judgment.
In this case, the Court considered some of the challenged facts as such facts may be
admissible at trial (even though they will also be subject to cross examination regarding
why such information was not disclosed during a deposition). At this stage in the
litigation it is not known if Evans will or will not be a witness at trial and whether the
one-sided text messages will be admissible. Other contested facts were not deemed
relevant to the Court’s summary judgment ruling. For these reasons, the Court will deny
without prejudice the motions to strike and such challenges can be raised as objections or
motions in limine at trial.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 22

CONCLUSION
While the Court finds Plaintiff has for purposes of summary judgment established
a prima facie case of sexual harassment, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding
whether the fact finder after weighing all the evidence and credibility of the witnesses
will find the alleged harassment was “severe and pervasive.” If the jury finds the conduct
by Evans was “severe and pervasive,” then the jury will also have to determine if LHC
has proven the elements for the affirmative defense to apply. These disputed issues must
be determined by a jury and summary judgment is denied on the sexual harassment claims
in Counts 1 and 2.
As to the battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts, the Court
finds as a matter of law, these claims must be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant LHC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with this Memorandum Decision and Order.
The jury trial shall proceed on the sexual harassment claim and Defendant LHC’s alleged
affirmative defense on at 9:30 a.m. on May 13, 2014 at the Federal Courthouse in
Pocatello, Idaho.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 23

2. Defendant LHC’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 39) and Plaintiff Setser’s Motion to
Strike (Dkt. 43) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED: March 12, 2014

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 24