## Facts

- Sheila A. Zerehi‑Carter worked for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) at its Raleigh–Durham Ramp (RDUR) facility, where she alleged she was frequently the only woman on duty.
- Zerehi‑Carter alleged that from the beginning of her employment she was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct and comments by coworker Anthony Hall and other coworkers.
- In mid‑March 1995, Hall allegedly touched or slapped Zerehi‑Carter’s buttocks as they passed each other.
- Zerehi‑Carter immediately reported the March incident to her supervisor, Brenda Fitzgerald.
- Zerehi‑Carter contended that no effective action was taken after the report and that Fitzgerald did not follow FedEx’s standard sexual-harassment procedures or document the complaint.
- Zerehi‑Carter alleged the harassment continued for months and that she repeatedly complained to management and also contacted a FedEx representative outside the RDUR facility.
- FedEx did not begin investigating until approximately October 1995, months after the first report; the internal investigation lasted about two months.
- Zerehi‑Carter alleged the harassment continued during the investigation period.
- Zerehi‑Carter reported developing physical and psychological symptoms, sought therapy, and was prescribed antidepressant medication.
- In November 1995, Zerehi‑Carter told her supervisor she felt unsafe at work and took about a month of leave.
- In December 1995, FedEx reported that its investigation found no evidence of harassment.
- In January 1996, another incident involving Hall allegedly occurred; Zerehi‑Carter requested reassignment away from Hall based on her therapist’s and physician’s recommendations, but the request was denied.
- Zerehi‑Carter was placed on medical leave due to her symptoms.
- Zerehi‑Carter filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC sued FedEx for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sought damages available under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
- Zerehi‑Carter intervened and asserted North Carolina claims for negligent supervision and retention and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- FedEx moved for summary judgment, arguing that the evidence did not support employer liability and that Zerehi‑Carter could not establish the elements of her state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence created a triable issue that Zerehi‑Carter was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex under Title VII (severe or pervasive unwelcome conduct).
2. Whether a reasonable jury could find FedEx liable for coworker harassment under Title VII based on notice and a failure to take prompt and adequate remedial action.
3. Whether Zerehi‑Carter presented sufficient evidence under North Carolina law to proceed on negligent supervision and retention based on FedEx’s knowledge (actual or constructive) of employees’ alleged misconduct and alleged failure to use reasonable care.
4. Whether Zerehi‑Carter presented sufficient evidence of negligent infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law, including foreseeability and “severe emotional distress,” to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied FedEx’s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC’s Title VII sexual-harassment/hostile-work-environment claim.
- The court denied FedEx’s motion for summary judgment on Zerehi‑Carter’s North Carolina negligent supervision and retention claim.
- The court denied FedEx’s motion for summary judgment on Zerehi‑Carter’s North Carolina negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when, viewing the record in the nonmovant’s favor, there are genuine disputes of material fact for the jury.
- A Title VII hostile work environment claim requires evidence that the workplace was permeated with unwelcome conduct based on sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
- For coworker (non-supervisor) harassment, an employer may be liable under Title VII if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action reasonably calculated to end it.
- Evidence that management received repeated complaints, failed to follow internal reporting procedures, delayed investigation, or took ineffective action can support a finding of employer notice and an inadequate response.
- Under North Carolina law, negligent supervision/retention focuses on the employer’s own negligence and may be shown by evidence that: (1) an employee committed a tortious act causing injury, (2) the employer knew or had reason to know of the employee’s unfitness or propensity for the conduct, and (3) the employer’s lack of reasonable care in supervision or retention was a proximate cause of the injury.
- The fact that an employee’s intentional misconduct may fall outside the scope of employment does not by itself defeat a negligent supervision/retention claim, which is based on the employer’s negligence.
- North Carolina NIED requires evidence of: (1) negligent conduct, (2) reasonable foreseeability that the negligence would cause severe emotional distress, and (3) severe emotional distress in fact.
- “Severe emotional distress” may be supported by evidence such as significant psychological symptoms, treatment by a therapist or physician, medication, and work disruption; when the evidence supports competing inferences, the issue is generally for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held that the record, if credited as a jury could credit it, supported findings that Zerehi‑Carter experienced ongoing sex-based harassment, that FedEx had notice through reported incidents yet allegedly failed to respond promptly and effectively, and that the same disputed facts also supported Zerehi‑Carter’s North Carolina negligence and emotional-distress theories; accordingly, FedEx was not entitled to summary judgment.


Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Express Corp., 188 F. Supp. 2d 600 (2000)