Plaintiff Hollie Wolf sued defendant Kum & Go, L.C. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment under Title VII and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). Before the court is Defendant Kum & Go’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Hollie Wolf was hired as a part-time store associate at Kum & Go Store 880 in Lone Chimney, Oklahoma on April 27, 2022. On July 5, 2022, Wolf failed a “BARS sting” by selling tobacco products to a secret shopper without checking identification. On July 12, 2022, Wolf sent a text message to her supervisors stating she would not be returning to work due to discomfort with her work environment and her supervisor Kevin Geen’s behavior. Wolf reported Geen’s alleged inappropriate conduct to Kum & Go’s Human Resources department on July 15, 2022. Kum & Go investigated the allegations, interviewing Geen twice between July 19 and July 22, 2022. The investigation concluded on July 22, 2022, when Kum & Go attempted to contact Wolf to inform her that they could not substantiate her complaint.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court addressed several evidentiary disputes. It found that portions of an affidavit from Wolf’s former supervisor, Lisa Butts, were protected by attorney-client privilege and thus inadmissible. The court also noted that screenshots of text messages offered by Wolf were not material to its analysis and did not address their admissibility.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Hostile Work Environment Claim: The court first determined that Wolf did not experience a tangible employment action because she voluntarily resigned from her job at Kum & Go. As a result, Kum & Go was entitled to present the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to vicarious liability.
Faragher/Ellerth Defense: The court found that Kum & Go satisfied both prongs of the Faragher/Ellerth defense. First, Kum & Go exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior by having a valid sexual harassment policy in its employee handbook, which Wolf acknowledged receiving. Kum & Go also promptly investigated Wolf’s complaint after she reported it. Second, the court determined that Wolf unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities by waiting to report the alleged harassment until after she resigned.
OADA Claim: The court applied the same analysis to Wolf’s OADA claim as it did to her Title VII claim.
The court granted Kum & Go’s motion for summary judgment on all of Wolf’s claims.
Schrag on Law 