Stewart v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for #16 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by L.A. Fitness International, LLC, #21 Report and Recommendations. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 16] is GRANTED in part and Plaintiffs claims for retaliation under Title VII and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs claim for hostile work environment under Title VII. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/6/13. (cm, )

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
APRIL STEWART
Plaintiff,
L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C
Defendant

§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION No. 4-12-cv-100

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. On January 4, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered his report containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant L.A. Fitness International’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. # 16] be denied in part and granted in part [Doc. # 21]. Specifically,
the report recommends that Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation under Title VII and for intentional
infliction of emotional distress under Texas law be dismissed but that Plaintiff’s sexual
harassment claim alleging a hostile work environment should proceed to trial.
Defendant objects to the report and recommendations on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s
allegations fail to constitute an objectively severe or pervasive hostile work environment; and (2)
Defendant took prompt remedial action such by investigating the allegations and offering
Plaintiff a transfer to another location. [Doc. # 24]. Plaintiff subsequently filed a response to
Defendant’s objections urging that this court adopt the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation in its entirety. [Doc. # 25].
1

The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and recommendations that
Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation under Title VII and for intentional infliction of emotional
distress under Texas law be dismissed as neither party has objected to this finding. As to
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court is of the opinion Defendant has failed to
show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, so Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
on this claim should be denied. A review of the briefing, however, indicates that the parties may
misunderstand the applicable burden of proof in a Title VII hostile work environment case where
a supervisor in the employee’s chain of command —as opposed to a co-worker— is accused of
sexual harassment. See Watts v. Kroger Co., 170 F.3d 505, 509-10 (5th Cir. 1999)(stating that
under Burlington and Faragher, when employees bring a Title VII sexual harassment case
alleging that a supervisor harassed the employee, the employee need not prove that the employer
knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial
action. In such a case, an employer has the option of asserting the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative
defense and bearing the burden of proving it).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 16]
is GRANTED in part and Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation under Title VII and for intentional
infliction of emotional distress under Texas law are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED THAT the motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim for hostile work environment
under Title VII.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6 day of March, 2013.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2