A federal jury awarded $2 million in punitive damages and $170,000 for emotional harm against SkyWest Airlines to settle an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sex discrimination lawsuit. 

According to the EEOC, multiple coworkers and at least one manager made extremely crude sexual comments to parts clerk, Sarah Budd, including the suggestion that she should make money via prostitution. Male co-workers also solicited Budd to perform demeaning sex acts and made frequent jokes and remarks about rape and rape victims, including the statement that women who report rape do so for attention. The jury agreed that Budd, herself a survivor of sexual assault, experienced physical and intense mental anguish because of her work environment. 

According to EEOC documents, her supervisor did nothing in response to Budd’s complaints. When Budd reported the harassment to SkyWest’s employee relations department, the employee relations manager did not interview many of the employees identified as witnesses or participants in the harassment, nor did they ask obvious follow-up questions. As a result, the investigation failed to uncover the full extent of the harassment alleged. Although remedial measures such as the disciplining of participating coworkers and department-wide training were promised, the discipline was superficial, and the training was canceled after Budd retired. Training was conducted three years later, and only in response to litigation. 

What Does it Mean 

Employers can learn several important lessons from SkyWest’s failures in addressing the reported conduct. 

• Inadequate Response to Complaints: SkyWest failed to properly address Budd’s complaints about a sexually hostile work environment. This included ignoring her complaints and conducting inadequate investigations, which in this case, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
  • Whether governed by state or federal anti-harassment laws, employers should always take complaints alleging sexually harassing conduct seriously and give them top priority.  
  • The focus should be on determining whether the report involves behavior serious enough to warrant a formal investigation. If it is not so serious (e.g., an employee’s discomfort with an offhand compliment), then the situation might be resolved by counseling the individual. However, if there are allegations of conduct that, if true, would violate your company’s rules or expectations, the matter should be investigated to make a factual determination about what happened.  
  • Once the investigation is complete, action should be taken based on the factual findings. 

• Lack of Effective Disciplinary Actions and Training: The company promised disciplinary actions and training to address the hostile work environment but did not effectively implement these measures. This failure contributed to the continuation of the hostile environment.
  • State and federal law make it clear that an employer must take appropriate remedial steps when there is proof of misconduct – the behavior does not need to rise to the level of a legal or policy violation to warrant a remedy. 
  • To meet this obligation, employers should: 
    • Stop behavior before it rises to the level of unlawful conduct, which is why steps should be taken even when the behavior is not yet serious enough to violate the law.  
    • Impose remedial action commensurate with the level of misconduct and that discourages or eliminates recurrence; and 
    • Look at what the company has done in the past in similar situations, to avoid claims of unfair (possibly discriminatory) remedial measures (e.g., training, verbal counseling, one-on-one counseling/training, demotions, rescinding of a bonus, termination or other similar actions aimed at stopping the wrongful conduct).

This case underscores the critical importance of taking immediate and effective action in response to complaints of harassment as a means of lowering overall risk and ensuring a safe and respectful workplace for all employees.