## Facts

- Debra Lauderdale worked as a correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the Coffield Unit beginning in June 2004.
- After her training ended, Rodrick D. Arthur became her night-shift ultimate supervisor and allegedly began pursuing a personal relationship.
- Over several months, Arthur allegedly called Lauderdale repeatedly at her duty station, eventually averaging 10–15 calls per shift, and made unwanted romantic and sexualized remarks (e.g., telling her he loved her and proposing travel to “snuggle”).
- When Lauderdale rebuffed him and said she was married, Arthur allegedly responded with comments about self-harm.
- Lauderdale reported the calls to her immediate supervisor (Sergeant Kroll), who told her she could speak to the warden but not to mention Kroll’s name; she did not use formal reporting channels at that time.
- Arthur allegedly later touched Lauderdale’s lower back and stomach while positioning her in front of him in a confined area; she felt trapped and told him to stop.
- In December 2004, Lauderdale resigned and then formally reported the conduct to an assistant warden.
- TDCJ promptly investigated, found Arthur engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct, and disciplined him by demotion and transfer.
- Lauderdale sued TDCJ under Title VII for hostile work environment and sued Arthur under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
- Lauderdale conceded she suffered no tangible employment action attributable to the harassment.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a sex-based hostile work environment under Title VII.
2. Whether, absent a tangible employment action, TDCJ established the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense as a matter of law.
3. Whether Arthur was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 equal-protection claim.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It reversed summary judgment for TDCJ on the Title VII claim, holding a reasonable jury could find the conduct severe or pervasive.
- It remanded for further proceedings on TDCJ’s Faragher/Ellerth defense because material factual disputes remained as to both prongs.
- It affirmed summary judgment for Arthur, holding he was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment exists when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions; severity/pervasiveness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances (frequency, severity, physical threat/humiliation, and interference with work).
- Repeated unwanted romantic overtures by a supervisor, combined with threatening statements and physical touching, can support a jury finding of severe or pervasive harassment even without explicit sexual propositions or vulgarity.
- When no tangible employment action occurs, an employer may avoid vicarious liability for supervisor harassment only by proving both prongs of the Faragher/Ellerth defense: (1) reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment, and (2) the employee’s unreasonable failure to use preventive/corrective opportunities or otherwise avoid harm.
- Even where an employer has policies and conducts a prompt investigation once notified, disputes about the accessibility/effectiveness of reporting mechanisms and the reasonableness of delayed reporting can preclude summary judgment on the Faragher/Ellerth defense.
- For § 1983 claims against individual officials, qualified immunity applies unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the unlawfulness was clearly established at the time; on this record, Arthur’s conduct was not shown to violate clearly established equal-protection law for § 1983 liability.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the alleged pattern of supervisory calls, unwanted romantic/sexual comments, and physical touching could support a jury finding of a Title VII hostile work environment, but it required further factfinding on whether TDCJ satisfied the Faragher/Ellerth defense; it separately held that the supervisor was entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability under § 1983.


Lauderdale v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 512 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2007)