## Facts

- Carmen E. Masson was hired in 1983 by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a culinary-arts teacher at Lindsey Hopkins Technical Education Center.
- John Leyva became the school’s principal in 1991 and supervised Masson.
- Masson alleged that, from about 1992 through 1997, Leyva engaged in sex-based conduct and comments that created a hostile work environment.
- Alleged incidents included Leyva commenting that Masson was “good-looking,” in addition to being competent.
- At a grievance hearing, Leyva stated he would not “kiss [Masson’s] face” but would “kiss [Masson’s] ass” for her work.
- Masson described an “inappropriate conversation” in Leyva’s office involving Leyva and two female staff members about sexual portraits, lingerie, and sex toys; Masson left the office.
- Leyva allegedly made repeated remarks about Masson’s hair and clothing; on one occasion he said her hair looked great, compared her to a lion, approached, and then stopped after saying he forgot she was married.
- Masson observed Leyva kissing a secretary at school.
- After Masson helped obtain extra seating for a school event, Leyva leaned over and kissed her on the cheek or jaw without her consent.
- The School Board maintained a written policy against sexual harassment and a complaint procedure encouraging employees to report harassment to the principal or directly to the Office of Equal Educational Employment Opportunity.
- Rafael Urrutia, director of that office, conducted workshops and training sessions for supervisors and disseminated information about the School Board’s harassment policy and complaint procedures.
- Masson did not file a formal or informal complaint with Urrutia and did not use the School Board’s official complaint procedures.
- Masson sued the School Board in federal court alleging a Title VII hostile work environment; the School Board moved for summary judgment on the hostile-environment count.

## Issues

1. Whether Leyva’s alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Masson’s employment and create an actionable hostile work environment under Title VII.
2. If not barred on the merits, whether the School Board could avoid vicarious liability for a supervisor’s alleged harassment under the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense because it took reasonable preventive/corrective measures and Masson did not use the available reporting process.

## Decision

- The court granted the School Board’s motion for summary judgment as to Count I (hostile work environment).
- The court concluded that, considering the incidents as a whole, the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough under Title VII’s objective standard to amount to a hostile work environment.
- The court also held that, even assuming the allegations could establish a hostile environment and because the record did not show a tangible employment action tied to the harassment, the School Board established the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.
- The court found the School Board exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment through its written policy, dissemination of complaint procedures, and training efforts led by the equal-employment office.
- The court found Masson unreasonably failed to take advantage of the School Board’s preventive or corrective opportunities by not making any formal or informal complaint through the designated channels.
- The order resolved only the hostile-environment count; a separate Title VII claim concerning employment actions (Count II) was not decided in this ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment requires unwelcome sex-based conduct that is both subjectively offensive to the plaintiff and objectively severe or pervasive enough to change the conditions of employment.
- In evaluating objective hostility, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating (as opposed to merely offensive), and whether it interferes with work performance.
- An employer may be vicariously liable for a supervisor’s harassment, but when no tangible employment action is shown, the employer may avoid liability by proving the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.
- The Faragher/Ellerth defense requires proof that: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to use preventive or corrective measures provided by the employer.
- Written anti-harassment policies, clear reporting avenues outside the chain of command, dissemination to employees, and supervisor training are evidence of reasonable preventive and corrective care.
- An employee’s failure to use available complaint procedures generally supports the second element absent evidence that reporting would have been futile or that the process was inaccessible.

## Conclusion

Masson v. School Board of Dade County, Florida held that the alleged comments and isolated physical contact attributed to the principal did not meet Title VII’s severe-or-pervasive standard for a hostile work environment and, in any event, the School Board was entitled to summary judgment because it had communicated anti-harassment policies and reporting procedures and Masson did not use them, satisfying the Faragher/Ellerth defense on the hostile-environment count.


Masson v. School Board of Dade County, Florida, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (1999)