## Facts

- Kerry Ellison and Sterling Gray were IRS revenue agents in the same office; they were not friends and did not work closely together.
- After a lunch outing in June 1986, Ellison alleged Gray began lingering at her desk and asking unnecessary questions.
- Gray asked Ellison out for a drink; she declined and then tried to avoid being alone with him.
- On October 22, 1986, Gray gave Ellison an emotionally intense note suggesting distress over her and referencing her “hatred”; Ellison was shocked and frightened, left the room, and Gray followed her outside and waited.
- Ellison reported the note to her supervisor, who characterized the conduct as sexual harassment.
- While Ellison was away at training, Gray mailed her a letter that included sexually charged language (she was “worth knowing ‘with or without sex’”); Ellison again reported fear and requested that either she or Gray be transferred.
- The IRS temporarily transferred Gray to another office but later agreed, after a union grievance, to permit Gray’s return after additional time away if he stopped bothering Ellison.
- Upon learning Gray might return, Ellison transferred and filed a formal harassment complaint.
- Ellison’s administrative complaint was ultimately rejected at higher agency levels on the view that the employer’s corrective response was adequate.
- Ellison filed a Title VII hostile work environment action; the district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding no prima facie hostile environment.

## Issues

1. What objective standard governs whether alleged conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a Title VII hostile work environment in a sexual harassment case.
2. Whether Gray’s conduct could be found severe or pervasive enough, under the proper standard, to alter Ellison’s working conditions.
3. Whether the employer’s response to coworker harassment was prompt and adequate as a matter of law so as to preclude Title VII liability.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held Ellison produced sufficient evidence for a prima facie hostile environment claim; a reasonable factfinder could find Gray’s conduct severe or pervasive under the proper objective standard.
- The court held the adequacy of the IRS’s remedial measures could not be resolved in the employer’s favor on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Hostile environment harassment under Title VII is assessed under an objective standard that, in sexual harassment cases, should consider the perspective of a reasonable woman in the plaintiff’s position.
- Conduct may be actionable without physical touching or explicit sexual propositions if it is unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.
- A plaintiff need not show extreme psychological injury to reach a jury; Title VII aims to prevent harassment before it becomes debilitating.
- For coworker harassment, an employer may be liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, adequate remedial action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.
- Whether remedial steps were reasonably calculated to stop and prevent harassment is commonly a fact question when the response may appear to accommodate the harasser or leave the target to relocate.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Ellison’s evidence, viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable woman, could support a finding of a hostile work environment and that the sufficiency of the employer’s corrective measures for coworker harassment required factfinding rather than summary judgment.


Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991)