Employee Survival Guide® - Extreme Hostile Work Environment: The Case of EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines

Episode Date: February 7, 2025

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!What if your workplace wasn't the safe haven you thought it was? Join us as we unravel the complexities of EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, with Sarah Budd's harrowing journey shining a spotlight on the pressing issue of workplace harassment. This episode promises to enhance your understanding of the legal landscape surrounding hostile work environments, breaking down the EEOC's allegations and SkyWest’s contentious response. We scrutinize the pivotal courtroom moments, including the judge's decision to let the case proceed, and the jury's ultimate verdict awarding Budd $300,000 in damages. Whether you're an employee learning your rights or an employer aiming to foster a respectful workplace, this episode equips you with invaluable insights into the legal standards and implications of harassment cases.Dive into the critical examination of SkyWest's delayed and inadequate response to harassment complaints, shedding light on their insufficient investigation efforts. We'll guide you through the jury's deliberations, focusing on the legal nuances that shaped the outcome. As we conclude, we emphasize the broader implications for workplace culture, urging both employers and employees to commit to creating safer work environments. This episode is your guide to understanding the significance of documenting and reporting harassment, empowering you to take informed action against such misconduct. Thank you for joining us on this enlightening journey of legal exploration and workplace advocacy.Links to Court Pleadings and Decisions:Complaint: EEOC v. Skywest AirlinesAnswer: EEOC v. Skywest AirlinesCourt Order Denying Summary JudgmentJery Verdict in Favor of PlaintiffsCourt Order Reducing Verdict Award If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Hey, it's Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about and a lot more. Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're going to do a deep dive into this workplace harassment case, EOC v. Skywest Airlines. You sent us a bunch of legal documents about it, and I think what you want are the key takeaways from it, right?

But without all the legal jargon. Absolutely, yeah. We've got the initial complaint, Skywest's answer. There's a really important court order in here, and then the jury's verdict too. It's quite the story. Okay, cool. So where should we start? I guess with the complaint itself, right?

What exactly did the EEOC say happened here? Yeah, so the EEOC on behalf of Sarah Budd is saying that Skywest allowed a hostile work environment to exist, you know, based on her sex. So like crude comments, jokes, they even talk about gestures that simulated assault. That's pretty awful. Simulating assault. Wow, that's really serious. Were there any specific examples mentioned in the complaint?

Oh, tons of them, yeah. The complaint alleges comments about her body, her co-workers speculating about her sexual preferences, and even other colleagues making light of rape and even glorifying sexual violence. It's really disturbing. That's terrible. That's terrible.

That's so much worse than like just locker room talk or a few off-color jokes. Yeah, I mean, this is way beyond that. And it's important to note too, that the EEOC isn't just focusing on a few isolated incidents. They're saying the harassment was just so widespread that it created this constant just hostile atmosphere.

Okay, so that's what the EEOC is saying. What did Skywest say in response to all of this? Well they filed what's called an answer to the complaint and in it they deny many of these allegations or in some cases they say they don't have enough information to confirm or deny. So for example, they admit that Bud reported feeling uncomfortable at times because of banter between some of her colleagues, but they deny that the harassment was as extensive as she described it. So not a complete denial, but it sounds like they're trying to downplay it. Is that a typical legal strategy in cases like this?

Yeah, it's pretty common. Admit what you can't really refute, but try to minimize the rest. And it gets even more interesting when you look at how Skywest tried to get the whole case dismissed before it even went to trial. Really, how'd they try to do that? So they filed something called a motion for summary judgment. Essentially, they're asking the judge

to just throw out the case without a full trial, their argument being that they, you know, took prompt and appropriate action after Bud complained. 06.40. So do it work? 06.40. Not completely. No, the judge did acknowledge that Sky West took some action after Bud complained.

But, and this is where it gets really interesting. He ultimately decided there was enough evidence to justify a full trial with a jury. He didn't seem convinced that Sky West's response was, you know, prompt enough or sufficient to actually stop the harassment from happening. So this is where it goes from just, you know, legal paperwork to like an actual courtroom battle. Exactly. And the jury's verdict is going to show us, you know, just how persuasive each side was

in presenting their case. Okay. So before we get into all that drama, I want to back up a little and make sure I understand why the judge decided this case needed to go in front of a jury. What specifically in Sky West's response did he find problematic? That's a great question. And the judge's order denying summary judgment, it's actually quite detailed. To understand his reasoning, we need to look at two main issues.

First, did Sky West know or should they have known about the harassment? And second, did they respond quickly and effectively enough to stop it? Okay. So let's unpack those one by one. First, that knowledge issue. What did the judge look at to figure out if Skywest knew what was going on? So he pointed to Bud's initial complaint that she made to her supervisor back in September 2019. And then there were more formal complaints she filed, you know, later that year. This suggests that Sky West was alerted to the issue, but didn't do enough about it. So she didn't just like suffer in silence.

She actively tried to report the harassment. Right. And these reports became a central part of the judge's reasoning. He felt there was enough evidence to suggest Sky West was aware of the issue, but their response or lack of a response was a problem. So even if they argue later that they didn't know how bad it really was, the judge felt like their initial response, or like you said, lack thereof, was problematic enough to warrant a closer look by a jury.

Yeah, exactly. And remember that legal standard we touched on earlier, reasonably calculated to end the harassment? The judge just wasn't convinced that Sky West's actions met that standard. Right. Reasonably calculated. We mentioned that before. But can you just remind me what it means in this case? Sure.

Basically, it means the employer's response has to be proportionate and effective. So it's not enough to just give someone a warning or have some generic anti-harassment policy. The response has to show that they are really serious about stopping it and so it's not enough to just give someone a warning or have like some generic anti-harassment policy. The response has to show that they are really serious about stopping it and that it's not going to happen again. Okay, I'm starting to get the picture. So the judge felt that Skywest's response, even if they meant well, might not have been strong enough to actually meet that reasonably calculated standard.

Right. And that's ultimately why he sent this case to a jury. That's exactly right. And in the next part of our deep dive, we'll explore what the jury decided. All right. So the judge wasn't convinced and sends it off to trial. What happened next? Well, that's where things really heat up. The trial. The jury, remember, has to figure out two main things. Did Sky West create a hostile work environment for Bud because she's a woman? And the second part, did they retaliate against her for speaking out about the harassment? Right, right.

Those are the two main claims in the case. So let's take the hostile work environment claim first. What did the EEOC do? How did they try to convince the jury that Sky West was liable? They really focused on painting this really vivid picture of what Bud went through. They showed all that evidence of those crude comments, the jokes, all the stuff that created that hostile environment, and all those,

remember those comments and gestures that simulated assault? They really emphasized that, saying that goes way beyond what's acceptable at work. So they wanted the jury to really get how bad and how constant the harassment was. Exactly. It wasn't just a couple of things. It was a whole pattern of behavior that made her work life miserable. And they had Bud testify to you know, she got to speak directly to the jury and tell them about the emotional distress, how it impacted her. Yeah, putting a like, human face on those legal arguments that can be really powerful for a jury. What did Skywest do, though? How did they defend themselves?

Oh they fought back, definitely. Their lawyers acknowledged, alright maybe some inappropriate stuff happened, but they were adamant that they took action immediately and decisively once they knew what was really going on. So basically admitting to something but trying to minimize it. Pretty much, yeah. They made a big deal about putting Bud on paid leave right after she filed that formal complaint. So that shows how committed they were to protecting her while they investigated.

Putting her on leave does seem like they were at least concerned about her. Did the jury buy it? Well, remember, the verdict was mixed, right? So they sided with Bud and the EEOC on that hostile work environment claim, but they didn't find in favor of Bud on the retaliation. Wait, hold on.

Remind me what the retaliation claim was again. Oh, sure. Bud's lawyers argued that Sky West retaliated against her because she spoke up about the harassment. So they pointed to her being on indefinite leave for months, no clear date for coming back, and said Sky West was basically trying to get rid of her.

So even if Sky West did something, they're saying it wasn't enough to make her feel safe coming back to work. Exactly. They basically said Sky West created this impossible situation that forced her to take early retirement. That's a pretty serious accusation. How did Sky West respond to that? Their lawyer said, no, no, no, her decision to retire was her own, totally unrelated to

what was going on with the harassment. They pointed out that there was a good early retirement package available and that she had mentioned wanting to work part time before all this happened. So trying to like separate her decision to retire from the hostile work environment, make it look like just a coincidence. Exactly. And on that point, the jury agreed with Sky West. Wow. That split verdict is really interesting.

OK, before we go into all that, can we go back to the judge's decision to deny the summary judgment? You mentioned the order was pretty detailed. I'm curious, what did he find so problematic about Sky West's response that it warranted a trial? You're right. It was a very thorough order. And it helps us see why he sent it to trial. Remember, Sky West said, look, we acted right away

and we were effective, but the judge didn't buy it. Two things really bothered him. The timing of their response and, you know, just how thorough their investigation was. Okay. Let's take those one at a time. First, the timing. What stood out to him? Three months. That's how long it took from Bud's first complaint

to her supervisor to when Sky West actually started a formal investigation. So remember, she first brought it up in September 2019, but the investigation didn't start till December after she filed those more formal complaints. Three months is a pretty long time, especially if it was as bad as they say. Did he say why he thought that was a problem? He kind of implied that

Sky West at first were more dismissive than proactive, like maybe they didn't meet that legal obligation to address harassment claims right away. He pointed out that during those three months the harassment continued and Sky West didn't do anything until she, you know, went further with the complaints. So it sounds like he was worried that they weren't taking her initial complaint seriously enough, and that's why it was allowed to go on. Yeah, and remember that reasonably calculated thing.

A three-month delay just didn't show that sense of urgency, that commitment, you know, to really stop the harassment. Got it. Okay, so timing was one issue. What about the investigation itself? What did he think was wrong with that? A couple things. First, they didn't interview everyone but named in her complaints.

So maybe they weren't as thorough as they could have been in getting all the information. So maybe missed some key details, different viewpoints, you know, by not talking to everyone. Right, exactly. And remember, Skywest said they did discipline some employees, but the judge pointed out that the details of that discipline weren't clear from the evidence. So was it enough? Was it proportionate to what they did? So even if they did something, maybe it wasn't enough to really fix the problem and make sure it didn't happen again.

Yeah, good way to put it. He felt Sky West needed to do more, show they were serious about a harassment-free workplace. And so that, plus the delay in the first place, that's why it went to trial. All right, so we've got the judge's decision, the trial, that split verdict. But what did it all mean for Sarah Budd? I mean, did she get anything out of this?

Yeah, good question. Remember, the jury said Sky West was liable, all right, for the hostile work environment. So now they had to decide what Budd should get, you know, as compensation for what she went through. Right, damages. So what did the jury decide? What'd she get? A pretty good amount, actually. She was awarded a total of $300,000. Whoa. Oh, wow.

Yeah. And they broke it down. So $170,000 of that was for something called compensatory damages and the other $130,000 was for punitive damages. Okay. So what are what are compensatory damages? I mean what that's supposed to cover Well, it's meant to like compensate the victim for the actual harm They suffered because of what happened the illegal actions, you know So for bud that a hundred and seventy thousand dollars probably includes things like her emotional distress Maybe any therapy costs, damaged her reputation, stuff like that. So it's not about like punishing Sky West,

it's about trying to make things right for her as much as money can. Exactly, yeah. It's acknowledging that she was really hurt by that environment Sky West created. Okay, that makes sense. What about those punitive damages, that extra $130,000, what's that for?

That's different. It's not about compensating the victim, it's about actually punishing the defendant for acting so badly. So the jury basically thought that Skywest was so bad they deserved an extra penalty on top of paying her for her suffering, you know? Yeah, pretty much. And it sends a message to Skywest and other employers that this is serious, you know? This stuff won't be tolerated. Punitive damages are supposed to make them

think twice next time I'm a little confused though. Didn't the jury say that Sky West wasn't responsible for her resigning So how do they decide on these damages if they didn't think Sky West caused her to quit? Good point Yeah, those compensatory damages. They're specifically for the harm from that hostile environment they're specifically for the harm from that hostile environment. So even though she didn't get money for lost wages or future earnings, because they didn't think she was forced out,

she's still entitled to be compensated for all the distress she went through, all that harassment. Exactly. They saw that she was really hurt by all of it, even if it didn't directly lead to her leaving. It's important for anyone listening if you're in a similar situation. You mean, even if you haven't directly lead to her leaving. It's important for anyone listening, you know, if you're in a similar situation.

You mean even if you haven't been fired or forced out, you can still do something, take legal action if you're dealing with a hostile work environment. Absolutely. The law is there to protect people from harassment, whether or not they lose their jobs, document everything, report it the right way, talk to a lawyer if you need to. Wow. This deep dive into EEOC v. Skywest Airlines has been really, really fascinating. We started with that initial complaint,

then Skywest's response, the judge's decisions, all the way to that jury's verdict and the damages they awarded. Yeah, a lot of legal stuff, but hopefully we explained it in a way that makes sense, you know, even if you're not a lawyer. Definitely. And I think it just shows how important it is to take this stuff seriously, you know,

both for employers and employees. Everyone needs to work together to build a safe and respectful workplace for everyone. Absolutely. Well said. And to our listener out there, we hope you found this deep dive helpful. Remember, knowledge is power, so stay informed, stay curious, and keep learning. Thanks for joining us on the Deep Dive, everyone. We'll see you next time. If you like the Employee Survival Guide,

I'd really encourage you to leave a review. We try really hard to produce information to you that's informative, that's timely, that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you'd like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not as good, right? I'll keep it up.

I'll keep the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you. If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to mcaru at capclaw.com.