 |
Maegan Hall was accused of engaging in six counts of unreported sexual relationships in violation of the department’s employee handbook. The Lavergne police department characterized it as consensual but Hall believes otherwise. Updates March 22, 2024 - The case has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to rule.Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) 1 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) "The agreement was negotiated between the attorneys representing the city and Hall," the statement said. "The City's insurance provider will pay the sum of $500,000 to Hall as a gross settlement, which includes court costs, attorneys fees and expenses. "The City denies any admission of liability and no taxpayer funds will be spent to settle this lawsuit." Despite La Vergne's decision to settle the suit, one board member refused to sign off. "What message does that send to all the other employees?" city Alderman Dennis Waldron wrote in a dissenting vote, according to WTVF. "It's sending a message out to everybody in the world [that says] come to La Vergne, sue La Vergne because they're going to settle," Waldron said. Jan. 2, 2024 Maegan Hall filed an amended complaint after receiving a right to sue from the EEOC. Jan. 16, 2024 The City of LaVergne filed an answer to the complaint. Case Summary The investigation began on December 12, 2022, based on a source informing Mayor Jason Cole that Officer Hall was having inappropriate relationships with some of her coworkers. According to investigative reports, various sexual encounters between the officers took place, including alcohol-fueled incidents and the sharing of nude photos. The report also states that football watch parties were held where officers drove under the influence of alcohol, kissed, and discussed having threesomes with Officer Hall. |
The female Tennessee police officer fired over her sex sprees with fellow cops says she felt “terrorized,” calling out her bosses for the hostile work environment. Speaking publicly, Maegan Hall, 26, told WTVF she tried repeatedly to refuse the sexual advances of her boss, Sgt. Lewis Powell at the La Vergne Police Department — but “he wouldn’t take no for an answer.” The on-the-job affair with Sgt. Lewis Powell led to sexual encounters with other cops.
The report referenced an off-the-clock encounter at a hotel following an outing at the Go Kart USA center. One encounter, described as a “hot tub party” in the report, allegedly took place on Sergeant Eric Staats’ houseboat, where Officer Hall’s bikini top came off while drinking with others. Ostensibly, a sexual encounter took place in the bathroom of the boat. According to the report, Sgt. Lewis Powell, Officers Patrick Magliocco, Larry Holladay, Juan Lugo-Perez and Det. Seneca Shields admitted to engaging in sexual acts with Officer Hall. She admitted to having sexual encounters with the five officers, as well as McGowan.
According to the internal investigation, Hall was accused of engaging in six counts of unreported sexual relationships in violation of the department’s employee handbook. Moreover, the report said she was also investigated for two allegations of sexual activity on-duty and inside city-owned property, as well as one allegation of sexual harassment for sending explicit photos to her coworkers.
LaVergne’s director of human resources, Andrew Patton, interviewed Powell. Apparently, after “several rounds” of questioning, the sergeant acknowledged that he engaged in sexual conduct with Hall while on duty inside the police substation, the internal investigative report said.
The police agency originally placed Powell on paid administrative leave. However, the mayor approved his termination effective December 29th, 2022. During the investigation, Magliocco said that Hall sent nude pictures of herself to him and other members of the department. Furthermore, he acknowledged attending a hot tub party on Sgt. Eric Staats’ houseboat and engaged in sexual activity with Hall, according to the report.
Magliocco shared details including confirmation that Hall pulled him into the restroom where she asked him if he ‘wanted to f**k,’ the report continued. Hall reportedly engaged in an oral sex act with Magliocco the evening of the houseboat party. The group's sexual trysts are said to have taken place at hotels and people's homes, though Hall also performed oral sex on sergeant Powell and detective Shields while on duty.
Shields confirmed that Hall had given him oral sex in the police gym behind the police station. Shields told director of Human Resources Andrew Patton that he was on‐duty at the time of the incident, and he went back to his desk when finished to end his day.
The sexual exploits cost Hall and five other cops — including former Police Chief Burrel “Chip” Davis — their jobs; three others were suspended over the scandal. Davis was accused of contributing to Hall’s sexual harassment. McGowan admitted to taking out his penis with Hall in the room and taking a photo of it. He sent that photo to Hall.“When I was interviewing for the position at La Vergne Police Department, they described the environment as a family,” she told WTVF. “However, while I was aspiring to protect my community, the La Vergne Police Department was not protecting me.”
“I know what most people are saying,” Hall stated regarding the suit, “You know, ‘You could’ve said no.’ I get it. But my response to them is ‘I did say no, and he wouldn’t take it for an answer.’ “Eventually, I gave in from pressure.”
The interview comes on the heels of a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the department February 27th, 2023, where department chief and several top cops were alleged to have “sexually groomed” Hall. Attorney for Hall Wesley Clark added, "Maegan wasn’t looked at as a rookie cop to be trained and promoted. She was looked at like a piece of meat to be sexualized and exploited."
Speaking of her time working at the department, Hall stated, "I received harassing and threatening messages on my phone daily. I felt like I had been terrorized.”
The defendant, the City of Lavergne's motion for an extension of the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was granted. The deadline for defendant City of Lavergne to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was extended to April 4, 2023. The initial case management conference previously scheduled for March 27th, 2023, was rescheduled for April 25, 2023.
Court Date
Counsel is to submit a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order to the Court by March 3, 2025. Counsel for the parties are to appear for a pretrial conference in this Court on March 10, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. All lawyers who will participate in the trial must attend the pretrial conference. A jury trial is set to commence on March 18, 2025 at 9 a.m.
b) Reputational harm,
c) Mental suffering,
d) Loss of enjoyment of life, and
Answer to Lewis Powell's Countersuit
Defendant: City of La Vergne, Tennessee represented by Kristin Ellis Berexa and A. Ryan Simmons of Farrar-Bates
Defendant: Burrel "Chip" Davis represented by Isaac T. Conner of Stewart Johnson Conner & Manson.
Defendant: Lewis Powell represented by Drew Justice of Justicelawoffice.com
Defendant: Henry "Ty" McGowan represented by Jay B. Jackson, III of Mitchell & Mitchell
Patrol Officer – Patrick Magliocco
Patrol Officer – Gavin Schoeberl
Accuses her supervisor Sgt. Powell of grooming her for a sexual relationship from the beginning of her employ.
From the beginning of her employment, Ms. Hall experienced a workplace environment permeated with sexual innuendo and sexually explicit behavior, including:
I. Male officers routinely discussing sexual preferences, sexual attractiveness, and sex acts they had performed on women.
II. A male officer describing to Ms. Hall’s superior officer that he wanted to “take care of [Ms. Hall,]” that he would “e** [Ms. Hall] out,” and that he would “f**k” Ms. Hall.
III. Two male officers shared with one another, within Ms. Hall’s presence and while on duty, photographs of their penises.
IV. Sgt. William Watson, on multiple occasions, made sexually suggestive comments to Ms. Hall. For example, in Spring of 2022, Sgt. Watson commented on Ms. Hall’s tattoos and asked if she had any others. Ms. Hall responded that they were covered by her uniform. Sgt. Watson asked to see them, offered his personal number, asked to meet up off duty, and offered to show her some workout moves (with obvious sexual innuendo).
V. During her employment, Ms. Hall was groomed to engage in sexually exploitative activities by men in the department including Sgt. Powell, Sgt. McGowan, and Chief Davis.
a) Economic damages for lost wages and medical expenses,In an answer to Lewis Powell's countersuit Ms. Hall's pleadings asserts that Powell's claims of persistent flirting, her wanting a demonstration about how to 'please her husband' from him and that he initially turned down her offers for sex are false. Ms. Hall also alleges that to the extent the oral sex activities between the two parties were the product of free and voluntary consent stating that he held her down and ejaculated in her mouth non-consensually. Hall also denies that allegations of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual assault, and corruption were defamatory and that her overall claims about the department were false.
Principals
Plaintiff: Maegan Olivia Hall represented by Frank Ross Brazil, Sarah A. Mansfield, and Wesley B. Clark (Designation Retained) of Brazil Clark brazilclark.comDefendant: City of La Vergne, Tennessee represented by Kristin Ellis Berexa and A. Ryan Simmons of Farrar-Bates
Defendant: Burrel "Chip" Davis represented by Isaac T. Conner of Stewart Johnson Conner & Manson.
Defendant: Lewis Powell represented by Drew Justice of Justicelawoffice.com
Defendant: Henry "Ty" McGowan represented by Jay B. Jackson, III of Mitchell & Mitchell
Fired Officers
Patrol Officer – Maegan Hall based on the violation of sections 3.4, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.8 of the Employee Handbook regarding sexual activity while on duty, sexual harassment, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and lying during the course of the investigation Hall was terminated.Patrol Officer – Juan Lugo Perez based on the violation of sections 3.4, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.7 of the Employee Handbook regarding sexual unreported intimate relationships, sexual harassment, lying during the course of the investigation, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Sergeant – Lewis Powell
based on the violation of sections 3.4, 9.2, and 9.3 of the Employee Handbook regarding sexual activity while on duty, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and lying during the course of the investigation.
Detective – Seneca Shields
based on the violation of sections 3.4, 9.2, 9.7, and 9.3 of the Employee Handbook regarding sexual activity while on duty, sexual harassment, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Sergeant – Henry Ty McGowan based on the violation of sections 3.4, 9.2, 9.3, 9.7, and 9.8 of the Employee Handbook regarding workplace violence, sexual harassment, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and lying during the course of the investigation.Police Chief – Burrel "Chip" Davis based on the investigation found that Davis possessed a unique combination of information, authority, responsibility, and opportunity to change the course of these events but Chief Davis did not act.
Suspended Officers
Canine Officer – Larry HolladayPatrol Officer – Patrick Magliocco
Patrol Officer – Gavin Schoeberl
Facts of the Case
- Plaintiff Maegan Hall is a woman and a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University with a bachelor’s degree in biology.
- In December 2020, Ms. Hall applied for a job with the LPD. She was 24 years old, 5’4’’ tall, and weighed approximately 135lbs.
- Part of the application process at LPD requires candidates to undergo a psychological evaluation.
- Ms. Hall was hired by the La Vergne Police Department on February 9, 2021. Ms. Hall was assigned to the second shift at LPD.
Allegations of the Suit and Pleadings
She was told to lie about her mental health problems to get the job. It is unclear how Sgt. Ty McGowan would do that given she hadn’t been hired yet. How did they know each other as one would think she'd be thoroughly vetted and tested before even entering training?Accuses her supervisor Sgt. Powell of grooming her for a sexual relationship from the beginning of her employ.
From the beginning of her employment, Ms. Hall experienced a workplace environment permeated with sexual innuendo and sexually explicit behavior, including:
I. Male officers routinely discussing sexual preferences, sexual attractiveness, and sex acts they had performed on women.
II. A male officer describing to Ms. Hall’s superior officer that he wanted to “take care of [Ms. Hall,]” that he would “e** [Ms. Hall] out,” and that he would “f**k” Ms. Hall.
III. Two male officers shared with one another, within Ms. Hall’s presence and while on duty, photographs of their penises.
IV. Sgt. William Watson, on multiple occasions, made sexually suggestive comments to Ms. Hall. For example, in Spring of 2022, Sgt. Watson commented on Ms. Hall’s tattoos and asked if she had any others. Ms. Hall responded that they were covered by her uniform. Sgt. Watson asked to see them, offered his personal number, asked to meet up off duty, and offered to show her some workout moves (with obvious sexual innuendo).
V. During her employment, Ms. Hall was groomed to engage in sexually exploitative activities by men in the department including Sgt. Powell, Sgt. McGowan, and Chief Davis.
VI. Maegan Hall says in her complaint that in her third interview she characterized the relationships at work as abuse and sexual harassment. However, she asserts that she had not detailed the harassment in her first and second interview. Below is how human resources recorded the reported incidents which implies that they did not acknowledge her claims.
Miss Hall is seeking damages on the following grounds:
b) Reputational harm,
c) Mental suffering,
d) Loss of enjoyment of life, and
e) Emotional Distress
42 U.S. Code Chapter 136 Subchapter III - Violence Against Women Act (DEFENDANTS POWELL AND MCGOWAN)
Although a non-supervisor will rarely possess the ability to prevent an employer from taking remedial action, the non-supervisor should be liable for conduct which encourages or prevents an employer from taking remedial action. Carr v. United Parcel Serv., 955 S.W.2d 832, 837 (Tenn. 1997), overruled by Parker v. Warren Cnty. Util. Dist., 2 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 1999)
Action can be brought as the individual has not consented to disclosure of intimate images, may bring a civil action against that person in an appropriate district court of the United States.
28 U.S.C. §1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 1343 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
The plaintiff has the right to recover damages for injury to her person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42. And to recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent. These rights are purported to be violated by the coworkers and supervisors at the plaintiff’s job.
Lewis Powell denies the plaintiff's allegations and is countersuing for defamation for statements made on Channel 5 news. Powell denies that he explicitly directed Ms. Hall to lie about the sexual activities at issue in the December 2022 investigation. Powell is requesting the following:
The Supreme Court has explained: In the absence of actual knowledge of the injury by the employer, waiver of the notice by the employer, or reasonable excuse by the employee for not giving notice, the statutory notice to the employer is an absolute prerequisite to the right of the employee to recover benefits. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Long, 569 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tenn.1978). The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the required notice was given or excused.
General rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within scope of employment for purposes of employer liability under agency principles. The United States Supreme Court held that courts must look to agency principles to determine when a supervisor's hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)) is imputable to the employer. This might be difficult as the unwanted advances were not reported, the plaintiff willfully lied to obtain employment and didn’t pursue outside psychiatric treatment even though it was within her power to do so.
The genesis for analyzing employer vicarious liability in a Title VII hostile work environment action is to determine whether the person who created that environment is properly identified as having been plaintiff's supervisor, because the test for determining whether to impute liability differs when the offender is a coworker as opposed to a supervisor. Employers are not vicariously liable for hostile work environment created by mere coworker of victim, unless employer knew or reasonably should have known about harassment but failed to take appropriate remedial action. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Cajamarca v. Regal Entertainment Group, 863 F. Supp. 2d 237, 115 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 235 (E.D. N.Y. 2012).
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401(a)(1) Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), an employer is subject to vicarious liability to victimized employee for actionable hostile work environment sexual harassment by a supervisor with immediate, or successively higher, authority over employee; however, employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages when no tangible employment action has been taken. Parker v. Warren County Utility Dist., 1999, 2 S.W.3d 170.
1-800-669-6820 (TTY for Deaf/Hard of Hearing callers only)
1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone for Deaf/Hard of Hearing callers only)
The plaintiff is pleading for and alleges to be entitled to liquidated damages for each nonconsensual disclosure of her intimate visual depictions from Defendant Powell and Defendant McGowan pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6851.
The plaintiff asks that she be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 15 U.S.C. § 6851; That she be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on her damages; and for such other, further, and general relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
The Plaintiff's Amended Case
The lawsuit points and authorities are the same except for a few changes listed below:
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment in Violation of The right to equal protection per the 14th Amendment. – Hostile work environment sexual harassment in violation of the right to equal protection per the 14th amendment. – Violation of the right to bodily integrity per the due process clause of the 14th amendment. – Conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s 14th amendment right to substantive due process.
- Chief Davis facilitated a hostile work environment in violation of City policy and the rules of the La Vergne Police Department by his receipt of nude images and videos of female La Vergne officers, and his failure to report same to City officials.
- Chief Davis explicitly condoned and promoted a custom within the LPD whereby sexual coercion by supervisors against junior officers was openly accepted. He thwarted investigations into misconduct.
- La Vergne Police Department General Order GO-300.01 states department policy: "Employees will not conduct themselves in an immoral, indecent, lewd, or disorderly manner. Additionally, employees will not conduct themselves in a manner that 'might be construed by an observer as immoral, indecent, lewd, or disorderly."
- Chief Davis and Sgt. McGown violated Rule 22 under the General Order, entitled "Offensive Material," which states: "Department employees shall not possess, reproduce, circulate or post any material that may be considered offensive regarding ... sex."
- Chief Davis told us in his January 23 interview that he did not report or discipline Sgt. McGowan for sharing the nude photo and videos, nor did he counsel or speak with Officer Hall. Cases involving co-worker harassment are relatively simple. The more difficult issues arise when the harasser is a supervisor. There are two general classifications of supervisor harassment: (1) the “quid pro quo” theory of sexual harassment; and (2) the hostile work environment created by a supervisor.
Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 6851 – Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401(a)(1) & Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1): Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment (Defendant City of La Vergne) (ALL DEFENDANTS)
- Sgt. Lewis Powell offered special training and special treatment in exchange for continued compliance with his sexual demands.
- Sgt. McGowan’s sexual advances and requests for sexual favors were unwelcome based on Ms. Hall’s repeated rejections and expressions of discomfort prior to the November 2022 sexual encounter.
- The Plaintiff alleges that Burrel Davis of having "Actual knowledge of and/or deliberate indifference to the circumstances under which Olivia O. (a former junior female officer who left the LPD immediately before Ms. Hall’s tenure began) because of sexual harassment and exploitation by male officers and supervisors within the department" In addition, Davis is accused of lying to continue the hostile work environment.
Individual accomplice liability under a hostile work environment theory requires conduct that is distinct from the harassment. To impose individual accomplice liability on a non-supervisory employee, a court must find:
(1) that a hostile work environment existed;
(2) that the employee acted affirmatively to aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer not to take remedial action to the hostile work environment; and
(3) that the employer engaged in employment-related discrimination by failing to take adequate remedial action.
(2) that the employee acted affirmatively to aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer not to take remedial action to the hostile work environment; and
(3) that the employer engaged in employment-related discrimination by failing to take adequate remedial action.
Although a non-supervisor will rarely possess the ability to prevent an employer from taking remedial action, the non-supervisor should be liable for conduct which encourages or prevents an employer from taking remedial action. Carr v. United Parcel Serv., 955 S.W.2d 832, 837 (Tenn. 1997), overruled by Parker v. Warren Cnty. Util. Dist., 2 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 1999)
The Plaintiff’s Case
15 U.S. Code § 6851 - Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images Action can be brought as the individual has not consented to disclosure of intimate images, may bring a civil action against that person in an appropriate district court of the United States.
28 U.S.C. §1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 1343 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
The plaintiff has the right to recover damages for injury to her person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42. And to recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent. These rights are purported to be violated by the coworkers and supervisors at the plaintiff’s job.
42 U.S.C. § 1988 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States. The plaintiff claims that her civil rights were violated by her supervisors and coworkers as they aided and abetted her eventual employment and by telling her to lie about her mental problems and sexually exploiting her once employed in a quid pro quo arrangement with Powell and McGowan. Powell is purported to have promised to “take care of” Miss Hall.
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States. The plaintiff claims that her civil rights were violated by her supervisors and coworkers as they aided and abetted her eventual employment and by telling her to lie about her mental problems and sexually exploiting her once employed in a quid pro quo arrangement with Powell and McGowan. Powell is purported to have promised to “take care of” Miss Hall.
Answers from the Defendants
The City of Lavergne answers that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law, no action or inaction of the City deprived Plaintiff of any interest or violated any right protected by the Federal Constitution or any other applicable federal law and that the Plaintiff was not subjected to any unwelcomed harassment in violation of any federal laws. Lastly, the City asserts defenses under Ellerth/Faragher as they had policies in place protecting employees against harassment, exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any alleged discriminatory harassment, and/or Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities. The city is requesting dismissal to the extent the evidence shows that the statute of limitations may have run, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and attorney's fees.
Henry "Ty" McGowan denies the plaintiff's allegations of grooming and harassment. McGowan denies during the course of the December 2022 investigation, he sought to physically intimidate an employee in the human resources department by placing his hands around her neck. He also states the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because of the doctrines of qualified immunity, estoppel, and comparative fault.
Lewis Powell denies the plaintiff's allegations and is countersuing for defamation for statements made on Channel 5 news. Powell denies that he explicitly directed Ms. Hall to lie about the sexual activities at issue in the December 2022 investigation. Powell is requesting the following:
A jury trial,
ii) Compensatory damages of $200,000,
iii) Punitive damages, in an additional and reasonable amount as set by the trier of
fact,
iv) Reasonable attorney's fees, per 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
v) Any additional relief that the Court deems proper, such as the taxation of costs to
the counter-defendant.
ii) Compensatory damages of $200,000,
iii) Punitive damages, in an additional and reasonable amount as set by the trier of
fact,
iv) Reasonable attorney's fees, per 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
v) Any additional relief that the Court deems proper, such as the taxation of costs to
the counter-defendant.
Ex-Police Chief – Burrel "Chip" Davis denies the plaintiff's claims even though texts received show that he became frustrated by his comparative failure to Powell to use Ms. Hall for sex. Davis is praying judgment for dismissal and attorney's fees.
 |
| Text exchange between McGowan and Davis referring to Ms. Hall and Sgt. Powell's relationship |
 |
| Text exchange of McGowan and Davis referring to Patrick Magliocco & Lewis Powell being questioned and what they thought might be revealed and the consequences. |
Problems with the Plaintiff’s Case
The harassment was not reported from the onset. If Internal Affairs or human resources for the city was not informed of the inappropriate behavior, how is the city liable for the harassment? Because with respect to conduct between fellow employees, an employer is responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.
With the firings and suspensions after learning of the misconduct, Lavergne’s police department has exhibited swift, appropriate corrective action making the claims of harassment murky in terms of their liability. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11, Lavergne’s police department acted when informed of the misconduct making claims of liability arguable. The Supreme Court has explained: In the absence of actual knowledge of the injury by the employer, waiver of the notice by the employer, or reasonable excuse by the employee for not giving notice, the statutory notice to the employer is an absolute prerequisite to the right of the employee to recover benefits. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Long, 569 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tenn.1978). The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the required notice was given or excused.
General rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within scope of employment for purposes of employer liability under agency principles. The United States Supreme Court held that courts must look to agency principles to determine when a supervisor's hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)) is imputable to the employer. This might be difficult as the unwanted advances were not reported, the plaintiff willfully lied to obtain employment and didn’t pursue outside psychiatric treatment even though it was within her power to do so.
The genesis for analyzing employer vicarious liability in a Title VII hostile work environment action is to determine whether the person who created that environment is properly identified as having been plaintiff's supervisor, because the test for determining whether to impute liability differs when the offender is a coworker as opposed to a supervisor. Employers are not vicariously liable for hostile work environment created by mere coworker of victim, unless employer knew or reasonably should have known about harassment but failed to take appropriate remedial action. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Cajamarca v. Regal Entertainment Group, 863 F. Supp. 2d 237, 115 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 235 (E.D. N.Y. 2012).
As the Lavergne police department has supervisors it is arguable that they'd be liable due to legal interpretation. Since internal affairs and human resources were not informed and the "supervisors" did not have absolute power it is possible that Miss Hall's claims that her immediate supervisors were solely responsible for the work environment she endured won't be construed that way.
Discriminatory Practices - Hostile workplace & Quid pro quo
It could be construed the Burrel Davis is liable for the hostile environment by failure to act and obstructing any investigation into the hostile work environment. Per Tenn. Code § 4-21-301, a supervisor that participated in behavior creating a hostile work environment is individually liable for discrimination, with a showing that the supervisor encouraged the employer to engage in employment-related discrimination, or prevented the employer from taking corrective action. Allen v. McPhee, 2007, 240 S.W.3d 803.Vicarious liability, or respondeat superior, is a theory used to impute liability for the actions of an employee upon his employer. This obviously opens employers up to a wide variety of claims. Tennessee law limits these sorts of claims to injuries caused by an employee while engaged in his employer's business and acting within the scope of his employment.
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401(a)(1) Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), an employer is subject to vicarious liability to victimized employee for actionable hostile work environment sexual harassment by a supervisor with immediate, or successively higher, authority over employee; however, employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages when no tangible employment action has been taken. Parker v. Warren County Utility Dist., 1999, 2 S.W.3d 170.
Sergeants Powell and McGowan might not be considered supervisors of Ms. Hall as they likely couldn't alter the conditions of her employment, access her performance and effect job opportunities. Under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) the employer is strictly liable for supervisor's quid pro quo harassment under doctrine of respondeat superior based on theory that supervisor is employer's alter ego and that supervisor has actual or apparent authority to alter employee's terms or conditions of employment. Economic realities test for determining whether workers are employees within meaning of Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) focuses on one's ability to control plaintiff's job performance and employment opportunities. Sanders v. Lanier, 1998, 968 S.W.2d 787.
Help with Sexual Harassment
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC
email: info@eeoc.gov
1-800-669-40001-800-669-6820 (TTY for Deaf/Hard of Hearing callers only)
1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone for Deaf/Hard of Hearing callers only)
To find a free lawyer to assist you, contact a Legal Services Corporation program in your area.