Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp.

United States District Court for the District of Kansas · 1996 · Civil Procedure

discoveryrelevanceproportionalitysexual harassmentretaliationsummary judgmenthostile work environmentconstructive discharge

Facts

K-Mart hired plaintiff as a fashion associate, and within days she alleged that Donald Graves, the receiving department manager, repeatedly touched her, rubbed against her, and made sexually suggestive comments when she brought merchandise to the receiving area. Graves had no supervisory authority over plaintiff, no power to alter the terms or conditions of her employment, and plaintiff did not know he was a manager. Plaintiff did not report the conduct until early July 1994, despite K-Mart's written anti-harassment policy; once she complained, management immediately investigated, obtained statements, warned Graves, and required him to sign a corrective notice, after which plaintiff experienced no further harassment from him. Plaintiff later felt supervisors and coworkers treated her coldly, and she quit on July 15, 1994.

Issue

Whether K-Mart could be held liable under Title VII for Graves' alleged hostile work environment harassment, and whether plaintiff produced evidence of retaliation through adverse action after she complained. More specifically, the court considered whether K-Mart knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action, or whether plaintiff was constructively discharged.

Rule

In a hostile work environment case, an employer is not automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor or managerial employee; liability must rest on common-law agency principles. Under the Tenth Circuit's framework, employer liability may arise only if the harassment was within the scope of employment, if the employer was negligent or reckless in failing to prevent or remedy harassment it knew or should have known about, or if the harasser was aided by an authority or agency relationship in accomplishing the harassment. For retaliation, a plaintiff must show protected activity, adverse action, and causation; where the alleged adverse action is constructive discharge, the plaintiff must show that the employer's discriminatory acts made working conditions so difficult that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maya Torres worked as a sales associate at Lakeview Outfitters in Wichita, Kansas. A warehouse manager from another department repeatedly made sexual comments to her in a back corridor, but he had no authority over her schedule, pay, or assignments, and Maya did not know he held any management title. After Maya finally reported the conduct, the store manager investigated that day, issued a written warning, and the conduct stopped immediately.

If Maya sues the employer for hostile work environment harassment, which argument most strongly supports summary judgment for the employer?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, employer liability for hostile environment harassment is not automatic. One basis is employer negligence or recklessness in failing to prevent or remedy harassment it knew or should have known about. Where management lacked prior knowledge, then acted promptly once informed, and the harassment ceased, the remedial action defeats employer liability. A managerial title alone is not dispositive, and a policy by itself is not enough.