United States District Court, D. Oregon
D. Fargey, Fargey Law PC, Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.
O'Kasey and Drew L. Eyman, Hart Wagner LLP, Of Attorneys
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Sarena Daniel filed this lawsuit in state court against her
employer, Defendant Oregon Health & Sciences University
(“OHSU”), and a supervisor at OHSU, Defendant
David Scott (“Scott”). Plaintiff alleges that
Scott sexually harassed her and that OHSU and Scott
retaliated against her after she reported the alleged sexual
harassment. Defendants removed the case to federal court and
now move for summary judgment against all of Plaintiff's
claims. Plaintiff concedes all of her claims except her claim
for sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment
against OHSU. For the following reasons, Defendants'
motion against that claim is denied.
is entitled to summary judgment if the “movant shows
that 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). The moving party has the burden of
establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable
inferences in the non-movant's favor. Clicks
Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257
(9th Cir. 2001). Although “[c]redibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing
of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions,
not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, ” the “mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the plaintiff's position [is]
insufficient . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 255 (1986). “Where the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
August 2014, OHSU hired Plaintiff to work as a cashier in its
Food & Nutrition Department. Scott trained Plaintiff
during her initial probationary period, and she reported to
him during that time. Almost immediately after Plaintiff went
to work for OHSU, she was uncomfortable working with Scott.
When Plaintiff began with OHSU, Scott was already involved in
a sexual relationship with another OHSU supervisor, who was
married. That sexual relationship was well known in the
sought to leverage his influence and position over Plaintiff
to coerce her into a similar sexual relationship. Scott
offered to engage in a sexual relationship with Plaintiff, to
be her “sugar daddy, ” stating that he would be
“nice” to her if she engaged in such a
relationship. Plaintiff declined.
continued to engage in inappropriate conduct with Plaintiff.
He commented about how she looked, called her “sexy,
” noted that he wanted to see her in something other
than her uniform, asked her what kind of underwear she was
wearing, and asked her to “be his sweet candy.”
He also embraced her and when she pulled away and told him to
stop, he responded that “no one will do anything”
if he continued to touch her. Scott also drew a picture of
women's underwear. While Plaintiff was looking at
Facebook during her break, Scott tried to “zoom
in” on a picture of Plaintiff and her breasts.
occasion Scott asked Plaintiff to “send him sexy
pictures” of her naked. A few days later, on November
14, 2014, Scott invited Plaintiff to a supply room and
indicated that he wanted to have sexual relations with
Plaintiff in that room. They were interrupted by another
co-worker, but later Scott asked Plaintiff about her
“preferred” penis size, making hand gestures to
mimic various lengths.
asked Scott to stop his inappropriate conduct, but he
continued. He told Plaintiff that he “liked
pussy” and he put his tongue between two fingers,
mimicking oral sex. On another occasion he offered to send
Plaintiff pictures of his genitals. It was Plaintiff's
understanding that Scott had sent such pictures to other
coworkers. Plaintiff was offended by Scott's conduct.
Plaintiff did not engage in sexual jokes in the workplace,
and it is contrary to her culture and her faith.
however, did not formally complain about Scott's behavior
until after she was no longer a probationary employee. On
March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Scott with
OHSU's Action and Employment Opportunity Office
(“AEOO”). OHSU placed Scott on leave while it
conducted an investigation. OHSU concluded that
Plaintiff's complaint could not be substantiated, but
nevertheless OHSU transferred Scott away from working with
Plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, OHSU reduced Plaintiff's
Scott no longer works in close physical proximity to
Plaintiff on a daily basis, he still comes to her work area
from time to time. On July 21, 2015, Scott attempted to
“run over” Plaintiff with a cart, prompting
Plaintiff to file another complaint with the AEOO later that
day. OHSU investigated Plaintiff's second complaint and
again concluded that her complaint could not be
substantiated. According to Plaintiff, OHSU responded to her
new complaint by falsely accusing her of engaging ...