## Facts

- In 1990, Kristine Bosley worked as a line worker on the kill floor at an Iowa meat-packing plant owned by Excel Corporation.
- Excel also employed Rock Johnson, Bosley’s husband, as a “floater” who filled in at various stations.
- In 1993, Bosley and Johnson separated but continued working at the plant.
- After the separation, Johnson repeatedly harassed Bosley at work, including calling her “bitch,” “slut,” and “whore,” and threatening to kill her new husband, Jeff Bosley.
- Bosley repeatedly complained to Excel management about Johnson’s conduct and told management she feared him.
- Excel’s response included telling Bosley and Johnson to keep their problems at home, and the jury heard evidence that Excel did little to investigate or stop the harassment.
- During one workplace incident, Johnson threw meat at Bosley, violating work rules, but Excel did not discipline him.
- On May 4, 1994, Bosley took personal time off due to stress from working around Johnson.
- When Bosley returned on May 9, 1994, Johnson continued verbally harassing her; Bosley twice asked her supervisor to leave her workstation and was twice denied.
- During a confrontation on May 9, Bosley pushed Johnson in the chest and told him to get out of her way; Excel suspended her indefinitely for violating a rule against physical contact between employees.
- Later that day, Bosley pushed past a supervisor to enter a room; the incident was reported as Bosley hitting the supervisor.
- On May 16, 1994, Excel terminated Bosley for the events of May 9; Johnson received no discipline.
- Bosley sued under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, asserting hostile-work-environment sexual harassment and sex-based disparate treatment in her discharge.
- The district court excluded Excel’s proposed evidence concerning Bosley and Johnson’s sexual relationship during the period of alleged harassment under Federal Rule of Evidence 412.
- A jury found for Bosley on the hostile-work-environment claim and for Excel on the disparate-treatment (discharge) claim; the jury awarded back pay and advised against front pay.
- Excel appealed the hostile-environment judgment and evidentiary ruling; Bosley cross-appealed the denial of front pay and aspects of the attorneys’ fee and cost award.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 by excluding evidence of Bosley and Johnson’s sexual relationship during the time of the alleged workplace harassment.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Bosley was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex and that Excel was liable for coworker harassment.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying front pay after the jury’s advisory recommendation against it.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining attorneys’ fees and costs.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the sexual-relationship evidence under Rule 412.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find harassment based on sex that was severe or pervasive and that Excel knew or should have known about it yet failed to take action reasonably calculated to stop it.
- The court affirmed the denial of front pay, treating front pay as an equitable remedy committed to the trial court’s discretion and finding no abuse of discretion on the record.
- The court affirmed the district court’s fee and cost rulings, finding the adjustments were within the court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 412 generally bars evidence of an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior or sexual predisposition in civil cases, allowing admission only under the rule’s balancing test and subject to trial-court discretion.
- A Title VII hostile work environment exists when unwelcome harassment based on sex is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
- For coworker harassment, an employer is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end it.
- Front pay under Title VII is an equitable remedy for the court, and any jury determination on front pay may be advisory.
- Attorneys’ fees and costs in Title VII cases are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and trial courts may adjust requested fees based on results obtained and related factors.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings, equitable remedies, and fee determinations is generally deferential and focuses on abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that Excel was liable for a hostile work environment created by Bosley’s coworker and ex-husband where management had notice but failed to take adequate corrective steps, upheld the district court’s exclusion of sexual-relationship evidence under Rule 412, and found no abuse of discretion in the denial of front pay or in the attorneys’ fee and cost rulings.


Excel Corporation v. Bosley, 165 F.3d 635 (1999)