WPC 5^O۱y]$18_~O( N.CA{sPIR;'B{j[Y2Z>4$_Q8rZ` #o2ўdܩ~MU;kn!=ޔK?1ӥRhIIPʘ?)'ҤgnJb{b O75+ww^G0$kEK:HN3VTB'̛/#*1fDX2 ͬXz Aqz=.gTj1I!׀QTW!6Č6TB@V Hd9jOJ7&;lgГ6]W8* Z{?PSE҅a~pH$]9P BaK[+mdWG; I?P  KC + `:^Xto׶O*>.mScc`# @UNK % 0(w@4  Z* 0 0D \    AQ 0PU:k:b B 0D 0D D/RR B D3 0D A D? BGHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ ()D*-./0D1D2Ӏ<y&3|x< P  $     1    Althoughthelitigantsdisputethelengthofsuspensionordered,thetrialcourt  considered,andweagreethatthisdisputeisnotmaterialtoAppellantsclaimsofhostileworkenvironmentunderstatelaw.(D(2$ !       0  (#$  0     $     2    AppelleewouldurgethiscourttodisregardMs.Parkerssubsequentaffidavit.Itis  clearandwellsettledthatthiscourtcannotsodisregardevidenceinthefaceofRule56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.SeeByrdv.Hall,845S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).  Regardingtheevidenceattrial,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewinfavorofthenonmovantParker,toconsiderifthereareanymaterialissuesoffactwhichwouldpreventthemovantConwoodfromsucceeding.   $     2    AppelleewouldurgethiscourttodisregardMs.Parkerssubsequentaffidavit.Itis  clearandwellsettledthatthiscourtcannotsodisregardevidenceinthefaceofRule56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureSeeByrdv.Hall,845S.W.2d208(Tenn.1993).  Regardingtheevidenceattrial,thecourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewinfavorofthenonmovantParker,toconsiderifthereareanymaterialissuesoffactwhichwouldpreventthemovantConwoodfromsucceeding.   $     3    Although,theU.S.SupremeCourthasfoundrecentlythatanemployercanbeheld  vicariouslyliableforahostileworkenvironmentcreatedbyaplaintiffssupervisor;Burlington  Industries,Inc.v.Ellerth,___U.S.___,118S.Ct.2257(1998);Faragherv.CityofBocaRaton,  ___U.S.___,118S.Ct.2275(1998);inasmuchastheenvironmentsinthosecasesweresolely t createdbysupervisorsaffirmativeactsforeseeablebyemployersandnotsituationsofallegedtacitapprovalabsentcomplaints;thiscourtfindsthecaseatbardistinguishableonitsfactsfromthoseauthorities.!"T$&C<< C ""  XcW XXX  XXcW   Ad FILEDXcW X   July20,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh waiver((3/Q$ !   d ,cAZ"Arial Regular 0#O@Xd#  - - dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd 'dxd(3$ !  Ty  <<= 8fC____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d !  ݛTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXX'XXX'  foќ<<<22r)<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r<22<t)>.*jx)>` `@EL` 8ttxP( > tߛ<TONYAA.PARKER,   8   )    0      8   )6(XXXX6 Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  AppealNo. ,    )  01A019807CV00386 B v.   )  X    )  MontgomeryCircuit  n CONWOODCOMPANY,L.P.,  )  No.C12288 4     ) Defendant/Appellee.  )   `     )#XX#tXX  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE   APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORMONTGOMERYCOUNTYATCLARKSVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEJAMESE.WALTON,JUDGE9,XXX(XX9  STEVER.DARNELLBateman,Bateman&Darnell101NorthThirdStreet#XXt#XXClarksville,Tennessee37040 Z&!  ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANTROGERA.MANESS114SouthSecondStreetP.O.Box1149Clarksville,Tennessee370411149 ATTORNEYFORDEFENDANT/APPELLEE  ̜AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  2fo7XXdXXd7  fo#O@Xd#    22fo7XXdXXd7  2 :L62w fo7XXdXXd7  2fo#O@Xd#    2 @  @ WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE  2fo7G4XXdd7  2  #XX#k8XXOPINION  #XXk8 #9,X4X,XXX9XX    #XX #XXAppellantTonyaParkerbeganworkforConwood,L.P.,intheGarrett   BuildingofConwoodsfacilityinClarksvilleonoraboutJuly22,1994.InOctoberof1996,Ms.ParkerfiledaformalcomplaintwithConwoodGeneralForemanTommyPorterwhichallegedinessencethatMs.ParkerhadbeenthevictimofoffensivesexualtouchingatthehandsofSamuelAnderson,oneofConwoodsemployees.ThisoffensivecontacthadapparentlyoccurredonoraboutOctober7,1996,inthepresenceofatleastoneothercoworkerandoneofhersupervisors,Mr.BruceBeizer.ThemostdirectresultofthiscomplaintwasawrittenwarningissuedtoMr.Anderson,referencingConwoodssexualharassmentpolicyandthreateningterminationifhisbehaviordidnotimprove.  TheOctober1996complaintunleashedafloodofinsinuations,accusationsandinnuendo,bothstemmingfromandflowingtoMs.Parker.InresponsetoMs.Parkerscomplaint,Mr.AndersoncomplainedthatMs.Parkerhadoffensivelytouchedhim.Hiscomplaint,inturnlaunchedaninvestigationwhichresultedinthreesuspensions.Mr.Anderson,Ms.Parker,andoneCarolynParchmannweresuspendedduetowhatwascharacterizedbyConwoodsPlantManagerandVicePresidentas inappropriatehorseplay.Inthecourseofthisinvestigation,priortosuspension,andapparentlyinconnectionwithherfirstcomplaint,Ms.ParkerbroughtmoreinstancesofinappropriatebehaviortoPortersattention,oneofwhichinvolvedoffensivecontactfromoneBillyStuart.Thesecomplaintsinturnwereinvestigated.ItappearsfromtheaffidavitsintherecordthatatalltimestheseinvestigationswereconductedunderthedirectionofConwoodsHumanResourcesManagerWayneKirby,thePlantManagerBryceSanders,andLesterGroves,ConwoodsVicePresident.  OnOctober18,1996,thedecisiontosuspendwasmade.OnOctober23,upontheirreturnfromsuspension,thepreviouslyreferencedemployees, includingMs.Parker,wereadvisedofConwoods zerotolerancepolicy "7r2; regardingworkplaceharassment.  #  1      ׀Ms.Parkerwasbackatworkfivedaysbefore   shefiledanothercomplaintregardinganotherincidentofhostiletreatmentatthehandsofBillyStuart.Conwoodinvestigatedthiscomplaintonthesamedayitwasfiled,discussingitwithalloftheallegedwitnesses.NoonecouldcompletelycorroborateMs.Parkersversionofthefacts.ThisinvestigationwasconductedbyWayneKirbyandTommyPorter.OnDecember19,Ms.ParkerbecameinvolvedinanaltercationconcerningtheuseofatowmotoronConwoodspremises.Thisaltercationoccurredwithyetanotheremployeeinfrontofyetanothersupervisor.Itwasonthisday1,1thatMs.Parkerresignedherposition.  Suitwaseventuallybroughtin(Montgomery()Davidson)CountyCircuitCourt.WeϜnotethatofthemultipleoffendingentitieslistedabove,Ms.ParkersuedonlyConwoodCompany,L.P.InresponsetoConwoodsmotionforsummaryjudgment,Ms.Parkerfiledanaffidavitinwhichshenotonlyrecountstheabovecircumstances,butallegesalitanyofsinsofallegeddiscriminationand coldshouldertreatmentonthepartofConwoodemployeesdatingbacktoJulyof1994.* |** |*  #  2      כ    ThetrialcourtrenderedsummaryjudgmentforConwood,finding,inpertinentpart:<( N X,X4X<8   N Withoutdiscussingalloftheelementstheplaintiffmustestablishtosucceedinthiscase,theCourtwillfocusontheoneelementwhichisfataltotheplaintiffsclaimonthesexualharassmentcharge.Thefactthatsexualharassmentoccurredisnotdisputed.However,forthedefendanttobeliabletotheplaintiff,theplaintiffmustestablishthatthedefendantkneworshouldhaveknownthatthesexualharassmentwasgoingon,butfailedtorespondwithpromptandappropriateactiontostoptheharassment.      ***  8   N Theplaintiffclaimsthatthedefendantkneworshouldhaveknownoftheotherclaimedsexualharassmentbecause 0,3 certainsupervisorsobservedwhathappenedandwhatwassaid.Forthedefendanttobeputonnoticethattheplaintifffeltshewasbeingsexuallyharassed,whentheplaintiffmadenocomplaint,wouldrequirethesupervisorstobemindreaders.Thereisnoevidencetoestablishthatthedefendantwasonnoticeconcerningconductaboutwhichtheplaintiffmadenocomplaint.Withregardtothethree(3)complaintstheplaintiffmade,itisclearthatthedefendantrespondedadequatelywithpromptandappropriateaction.    8  Therefore,astothegeneralclaimofsexualharassment,theplaintiffhasfailedtoestablishacriticalelementofherclaim.      TheissuesraisedbyMs.Parkeronappealareasfollows:<( X( N X<  I. WhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthattheDefendantwasnot (x onnoticeofthesexuallyhostileenvironmentofitsworkplace?  II. Whetherthetrialcourterredinfindingnomaterialissueoffact X concerningPlaintiffsallegationsofretaliatoryconduct?  III. Whetherthetrialcourterredinfindingnomaterialissueoffact  concerningPlaintiff'sallegationsofconstructivedischarge.   H!   p    &I&&I&.NOTICE  P    Sincenopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothetrialcourtsfindingonsummaryjudgment,thiscourtmustmakeafreshdeterminationofwhethertherequirementsofRule56oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurehavebeenmet.SeeCowdenv.SovranBank/CentralSouth,816S.W.2d741,744(Tenn.1991). &!& ViewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletoMs.Parker,wefindasthetrialcourtdid.AlthoughMs.Parkerarguedattrial-,-aswellasonappeal.,.thatnoticetoheremployerConwoodflowedbynatureoftheallegedfirsthandknowledgeofsupervisorypersonnelatConwood,theburdenofproofforthistypeofsexualharassmentclaimisclearinthisjurisdiction.ThesituationrelatedbyMs.Parker/'/sevidencebelowisoneofeithercoworkercreated0,0orsupervisorcreatedhostileworkenvironment.Asthetrialcourtrecognized,harassmentdidoccur;ofthisfacttherecanbenodoubt.However,ashasbeennotedthroughoutthiscase,MsParkerissuingher employer .Insuchasituation,shemustcomeforwardwith 5U08 theshowingdescribedbyoursupremecourtinCarrv.UnitedParcelService. 61: Theopinion,draftedbyJusticeHolderonbehalfofthemajority,readsasfollows:  Ӝ))' 9#5> '8 @ COWORKERHARASSMENT   &8   Anemployersliabilityfora hostile workenvironment  createdbynonsupervisoryemployees(coworkers)isbasedonatheoryofnegligenceandnotrespondeatsuperior.Toprevailonaclaimofcoworkerharassment,aplaintiffmustassertandprove:    8  8   (1)theemployeewasamemberofaprotectedclass;(2)theemployeewassubjectedtounwelcomedsexualharassment;(3)theharassmentoccurredbecauseoftheemployeesgender;(4)theharassmentaffecteda term,conditionorprivilegeofemployment;and(5)theemployerkneworshouldhaveknownoftheharassmentandfailedtorespondwithpromptandappropriatecorrectiveaction.    8   Spicerv.BeamanBottlingCo.,937S.W.2d884,888  (Tenn.1996).Anemployer,therefore,isliablefortheconductofnonsupervisoryemployeesonlyasabyproductofitsreactiontotheemployeesconductandnotasadirectresultoftheactionconduct.Accordingly,421401liabilityunderacoworkerharassmenttheoryispremisedontheemployersreactionandnotonthecoworkersharassingconduct.      ***SupervisorCreatedHostileWorkEnvironment R    8   Supervisorcreatedhostileworkenvironmentcasesdifferfromquidproquoharassmentinthatthesupervisordoesnotuseorattempttousesupervisoryauthoritytoobtainsexualfavorsfromanemployee.Thesupervisormerelycreatesahostileworkenvironmentinthesamemannerasanemployeewithnosupervisoryauthority.Whethertheemployerisliableforitssupervisor'sactionsinhostileworkenvironmentclaimsdependson:"(1)whetherthesupervisor'sharassingactionswereforeseeableorfellwithinthescopeofemployment;and(2)eveniftheywere,whethertheemployerrespondedadequatelyandeffectivelytonegateliability."Piercev. -b(& CommonwealthLifeIns.Co.,40F.3d796,803(6th ".r)' Cir.1994).Accordingly,theemployer'sliabilityispredicatedonitsreactiontothediscriminatoryconduct.    ӜCarrv.UnitedParcelService,955S.W.2d832,836,838(Tenn.1997).In b2-+ responsetoConwoodsstatementofundisputedfacts,number9regardingnoticetotheemployer,Ms.Parkerassertsthefollowing:808  Plaintiff[Parker]didnotneedto complaintohersupervisors,becausemuchoftheconductoccurredinthepresenceofhersupervisors,RodneyTurnerandBruceBeizer J943 onaregularbasis.Supervisors,RodneyTurnerandBruceBeizer,participatedtosomeextentintheverbalconduct.      IfMs.Parkerisattemptingtotravelonacoworkerharassmenttheory,mereknowledgeofthesupervisorswillnotbeimputedtoConwood,especiallyinlightoftheongoinginvestigationconductedbyConwoodemployeesrelativetothisallegedconduct.ShouldMs.Parkerassertthathersupervisorscreatedtheenvironment,thereisnoshowingthat,againinlightoftheongoinginvestigationconductedbyMessrs.KirbyandPorter,Conwoodcouldhaveforeseenthisconductattheoutset.Thereisnoshowingthatsuchoffensiveconductwaswithinthescopeofthesecoworkers'orsupervisors'employment,andnoshowingthattheemployerdidanythingbutinvestigatetheclaimsanddisciplinethoseresponsible.  #  3          SinceMs.Parkerfailedinsatisfyingherburdenwithrespecttotheactionfiled,summaryjudgmentwasproper.8        II.RETALIATORYCONDUCT    Ms.Parkerarguesthattherecordshowsretaliatoryconductonthepart =  ofthedefendantConwood,againstherforfilingasexualharassmentcomplaint.Inasmuchashertheoryinthisrespectechoestheproblemslistedregardingnotice,thiscourtmustaffirmthetrialcourtsfinding.ThereisnoshowingthatConwoodkneworshouldhaveknownofanycoldshouldertreatmentwithoutacomplaint,andnoshowingthatonceacomplaintwasmade,Conwoodmadeinadequateorinappropriateresponse.SeeCampbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26,31 ($, 32(Tenn.1996).  III.CONSTRUCTIVEDISCHARGE -(2    Asthetrialcourtcorrectlypointedoutinitsmemorandumopinion, */z*4  noticeisMs.Parkerswatchword.Ms.ParkerclaimsthatConwood 0,6 constructivelydischargedherfromitsfacility.Tosucceedinmeetingherinitialburden,shemustshowthat areasonableemployerwouldhaveforeseentheemployeesresignation,giventheintolerableconditionsofemployment.See 0 Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26,34(Tenn.1996) . Oursupreme x  courthasstatedwithregardtothisstandardofproof:8  ...[I]nthecontextofahostileworkenvironmentclaim,thatstandardrequiresaplaintiffclaimingconstructivedischargetodemonstratethattheharassmentissosevereorpervasivethatworkconditionswereintolerable,ashowinggreaterthantheminimumrequiredtoprovehostileworkenvironment.    ̜Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26,34(Tenn.1996) . #XG4X] #Ԁ<]XXG4Ms.Parker ^ reportedno coldshouldertreatmenttoConwoodthatremaineduninvestigated.AndshefailedtoshowthatConwoodkneworshouldhaveknownofsuchtreatment.ItnecessarilyfollowsthatifMs.Parkerfailedtoprovehostileworkenvironment,shethereforefailstoproveconstructivedischarge.  Underauthoritiesandaccordingtotheprinciplescitedabove,thiscourtaffirmsthesummaryjudgmentofthetrialcourt,andremandsthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsasnecessary.CostsonappealaretaxedagainstAppellant.?( @X( X?     ________________________________________     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE_________________________________________PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE