## Facts

- Veneal Williams worked in advertising sales for Spartan Communications’ television station from 1989 to 1995.
- In 1992, Mitchell Maund became Local Sales Manager and Williams’s direct supervisor.
- Williams alleged that from 1992 to 1995 Maund sexually assaulted her on three business trips, including an incident in her van after Maund instructed renting and watching an R-rated movie.
- On May 24, 1995, Williams reported Maund’s conduct to senior managers responsible for sales and personnel.
- On May 25, 1995, management met with Maund; he admitted renting and watching the movie in Williams’s van and resigned the same day.
- Spartan provided Maund five months of severance pay in exchange for a release of liability connected to his dismissal.
- Spartan had a written anti-harassment policy, but the record included evidence of limited training/communication and tolerance of sexually explicit or misogynistic managerial remarks without discipline.
- Williams later resigned, alleging the harassment and its effects made continued employment untenable.

## Issues

1. Whether Spartan could be vicariously liable under Title VII for a hostile work environment created by Williams’s supervisor when no tangible employment action was taken against Williams.
2. Whether Spartan proved the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense as a matter of law at summary judgment by showing (a) reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment and (b) Williams unreasonably failed to use preventive or corrective opportunities.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held the appeal was properly before it and proceeded to the merits.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Spartan and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court concluded Spartan did not establish the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense as a matter of law because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding both prongs.
- Chief Judge Wilkinson dissented.

## Legal Principles

- An employer is vicariously liable for a supervisor’s hostile-environment harassment; if no tangible employment action occurs, the employer may avoid liability only by proving the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.
- The defense requires proof that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use available preventive or corrective measures.
- A written anti-harassment policy is relevant but not dispositive; factfinders may consider whether the policy was effectively communicated, training occurred, and management conduct supported reporting and enforcement.
- The reasonableness of an employee’s delay in reporting may be a fact question, especially where the alleged harasser is the immediate supervisor and evidence suggests reporting could be futile or risky.
- Summary judgment is improper when the record permits competing inferences on the employer’s preventive/corrective efforts and the employee’s reasonableness.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment because the record permitted a jury to find Spartan’s policy and workplace practices were not reasonably preventive and that Williams’s delay in reporting was not unreasonable, defeating the Faragher/Ellerth defense at the summary-judgment stage.


Williams v. Spartan Commc’ns, Inc., 210 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 2000)