## Facts

- Victoria Lynn Hansel worked as an auxiliary tender (entry-level plant operations) at the Comanche Power Plant in Pueblo, Colorado, operated by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC).
- Hansel was often the only woman on her shift; no woman in plant operations advanced from auxiliary tender to equipment operator during the relevant period.
- From the beginning of her employment, Hansel experienced repeated sex-based harassment in the workplace, including unwanted physical contact (including buttocks slapping and breast fondling) and persistent gender-based ridicule in front of coworkers.
- Hansel was sexually assaulted and raped by a coworker after accepting a ride home offered by male coworkers.
- A coworker confronted her in the women’s restroom with a noose and told her to kill herself.
- Hansel first raised harassment concerns during a performance review; her supervisor advised her to “fit in better” rather than initiating an effective response.
- After raising harassment again, Hansel suffered a mental-health crisis requiring hospitalization; upon her return, coworkers mocked her as a “mental case.”
- In 1983 Hansel made a formal complaint to management identifying multiple harassers; the accused denied wrongdoing and PSC took no meaningful further action.
- PSC had a written anti-harassment policy, but the court found it was not effectively communicated, monitored, or enforced, and it did not provide an effective complaint and correction mechanism.
- Hansel filed an EEOC charge in 1987 and later sued under Title VII alleging a sexually hostile work environment and sex-based disparate treatment in training and advancement.

## Issues

1. Whether Hansel proved a sex-based hostile work environment under Title VII based on severe or pervasive harassment that altered the conditions of employment.
2. Whether PSC was liable because it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action.
3. Whether PSC engaged in disparate treatment based on sex in training, job opportunities, or advancement.
4. What equitable relief was appropriate if Title VII liability was established.

## Decision

- The court found that Hansel was subjected to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment that created an abusive working environment in violation of Title VII.
- The court held PSC liable because management had actual or constructive notice and did not take adequate steps reasonably calculated to stop the harassment.
- The court treated the existence of a written anti-harassment policy as insufficient where monitoring, enforcement, and complaint response were ineffective.
- Hansel prevailed principally on the hostile-environment claim; the court did not accept all aspects of her disparate-treatment advancement and training theories.
- The court awarded equitable relief consistent with Title VII, including back-pay-type relief to the extent supported and measures directed at correcting workplace conditions.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment exists when sex-based harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
- An employer is liable for coworker harassment when it knew or should have known of the misconduct and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.
- Management minimization of complaints, failure to investigate, and failure to impose corrective measures can support a finding that the employer did not act reasonably to prevent or correct harassment.
- A written anti-harassment policy does not shield an employer if it is not effectively implemented through reporting avenues, training, monitoring, and enforcement.
- Title VII remedies are equitable and may include back pay and prospective relief aimed at eliminating unlawful workplace conditions.

## Conclusion

The court held that PSC violated Title VII by permitting a severe and pervasive sexually hostile work environment and by failing, after notice, to take effective corrective action; it granted equitable relief while rejecting portions of Hansel’s disparate-treatment claims that were not proven.


Hansel v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 778 F. Supp. 1126 (D. Colo. 1991)