The Fourth Circuit recently dismissed the sexual harassment claim of an employee who brought a vague complaint of “horrible” conduct to her human resources department, but refused to cooperate in her employer’s efforts to investigate. Crockett v. Mission Hosp. Inc., No. 12-1910 (4th Cir. May 30, 2013).
Stephanie Crockett worked for Mission Hospital as a radiologic technologist. Her supervisor, Harry Kemp, issued her a final warning for using her cell phone during work time on February 16, 2010. Two days later, Ms. Crockett asked to speak with Kemp about the warning. According to Ms. Crockett, Mr. Kemp insisted on meeting with her in an empty office, claiming that his office was bugged. Mr. Kemp allegedly asked Crockett to lift her shirt to show she was not wearing a “wire” and tried to kiss her.
The following week, Human Resources told Ms. Crockett that Mr. Kemp reported her improper use of her cell phone and that Mr. Kemp advised that Ms. Crockett lifted her shirt to “flash” him in an effort to keep him from telling other managers and HR about her discipline for cell phone use. In response, Ms. Crockett claimed that Mr. Kemp did something “horrible” but refused to give any details. The company gave Ms. Crockett a copy of the sexual harassment policy and promptly launched an investigation, speaking with Mr. Kemp (who denied any wrongdoing), Ms. Crockett (who refused to elaborate on her allegation), and other employees on duty that evening (none of whom witnessed anything). On March 5, HR told Ms. Crockett they could not substantiate her complaint.
Crockett immediately filed a charge with the EEOC and on March 17, finally shared the details of her complaint with HR. In a meeting with HR on March 18, Kemp again denied Crockett’s allegations. Mission Hospital had no opportunity to speak with him further because he committed suicide the next day. Mission Hospital fired Crockett a few days later after learning that she secretly taped her meeting with HR and for other interactions with patients and co-workers. Crockett then sued Mission Hospital for sexual harassment.
In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Mission Hospital, the Fourth Circuit held that Mission successfully established its affirmative defense that it had reasonable measures in place to prevent and correct harassment that Crockett failed to follow. The hospital had a harassment policy, of which Crockett was aware, and immediately tried to investigate the alleged “horrible” conduct. Crockett refused to cooperate for weeks, and Mission Hospital took all appropriate measures to engage in an investigation. Ms. Crockett unreasonably failed to utilize the process and was not rewarded for her failing.