A U.S. court has rejected SkyWest Airlines’ efforts to overturn a jury’s decision that awarded $130,000 in damages to a former parts clerk who was subjected to sexual harassment while working at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.
The court upheld the jury’s findings that S.B. was harassed by coworkers, and that managers at the airline—including the parts manager and maintenance supervisor—acted with “malice or reckless indifference” to her federally protected rights. The ruling carries significance for employers regarding how internal investigations are conducted and the credibility of “good-faith” defences under U.S. Title VII legislation.
The jury originally awarded $2 million in punitive damages and $170,000 in compensatory damages, but the court reduced the punitive award to meet the statutory cap, setting the total damages at $130,000.
Harassment substantiated by the jury
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the employee as an intervenor-plaintiff, brought the suit against SkyWest Airlines under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The court noted that the jury found:
- S.B. was sexually harassed because of her sex;
- SkyWest either knew or should have known about the harassment;
- The airline failed to take prompt remedial action;
- Specific managers, including the Employee Relations Manager, Parts Manager and Maintenance Supervisor, had authority to act but failed to do so appropriately;
- These managers acted with malice or reckless indifference;
- The harassment was not contrary to SkyWest’s good-faith efforts to prevent discrimination.
The court concluded there was “legally sufficient evidence” for the jury’s decision and denied the airline’s request for judgment as a matter of law.
Management’s state of mind under scrutiny
SkyWest argued there was insufficient evidence that any managerial employee acted with the necessary intent for punitive damages. However, the court highlighted evidence that the maintenance supervisor—who was directly implicated in the harassment—had received mandatory training on the company’s anti-harassment policies.
“There is legally sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found that [the supervisor] acted with malice or reckless indifference,” the court said, citing training and testimony that established the manager was aware of federal obligations yet still engaged in inappropriate conduct.
The court rejected SkyWest’s claim that it had exercised good-faith efforts to comply with the law, noting that the investigation into the harassment was “too ineffective” to qualify.
Flawed investigation undermined defence
SkyWest’s internal investigation, led by its Employee Relations Manager, was central to its defence. But the court found the investigation lacked rigour, noting that not all implicated employees were interviewed, and that those who were interviewed were not questioned thoroughly.
The airline also failed to follow its own standard practice of producing a written investigative summary. Disciplinary action was either minimal or nonexistent, with the court noting that “relatively lenient remedial measures” were taken.
These findings led the court to reject SkyWest’s argument that it had taken adequate steps to prevent harassment, which is a key requirement to avoid punitive damages under U.S. law.
No new trial granted
SkyWest also sought a new trial, arguing the jury was improperly influenced by four text message exhibits involving the employee and her family and friends. The court had admitted the texts as evidence of her state of mind, not for the truth of the statements. It found no error in their admission and concluded there was no prejudice warranting a new trial.
Additionally, SkyWest argued that the employee failed to mitigate her emotional harm and that the jury should have been instructed accordingly. The court dismissed this, stating there is no well-established common-law duty to mitigate emotional distress damages in Title VII cases.
Injunction imposed to prevent future violations
The EEOC requested an injunction to prevent future violations, arguing that SkyWest had not demonstrated it would comply with Title VII going forward. The court agreed, noting that the same policies and some of the same personnel involved in the case remained in place.
It imposed a three-year injunction requiring SkyWest to:
- Create a protocol for responding to discrimination and harassment;
- Conduct annual harassment training for all employees at its Dallas-Fort Worth location;
- Provide additional training to the Employee Relations Manager for the parts and maintenance department;
- Post and distribute Title VII compliance notices; and
- Report any future harassment complaints in those departments to the EEOC within 30 days.
While the EEOC requested a five-year injunction, the court determined three years was sufficient to ensure compliance without being excessive.
View the original ruling here.
