Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade

Background

Trina Hill worked for Goodfellow Top Grade Construction, LLC, a subcontractor on the Chase Center project in San Francisco. She primarily worked at construction sites and, because of a lung condition, was not capable of performing general physical labor. She testified that she told a Goodfellow supervisor about her lung condition.

Hill’s sexual-harassment claim was based on three incidents. On July 13, 2017, Hill and a coworker found a phallic-shaped object at their work gate. When Hill asked Michael Bounds, an employee of another subcontractor, whether he had placed it there, she testified that he exposed himself. On September 18, 2017, another worker, Maurice Haskell, called Hill a gender-linked derogatory term and threatened her and her family during an argument. Hill also claimed that Goodfellow retaliated against her after she reported workplace incidents and raised concerns related to flagging assignments. On September 18, Goodfellow issued her a written “Coach to Correct” notice and suspended her for one day.

Hill sued under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, alleging race discrimination, sex discrimination, race harassment, sex harassment, and retaliation. The jury found for Goodfellow on the race discrimination, sex discrimination, and race harassment claims. It found for Hill on sexual harassment and retaliation and awarded her $11,250 for sexual harassment and $7,500 for retaliation.

Rule 50(b) Standard

Goodfellow filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). The court explained that it could grant the motion only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hill, the record allowed only one reasonable conclusion and that conclusion contradicted the jury’s verdict. The court therefore had to uphold the verdict if substantial evidence supported it.

Sexual-Harassment Claim

The court granted Goodfellow’s motion as to Hill’s sexual-harassment claim. For a hostile-work-environment claim, the alleged conduct must be unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. The court considers the totality of the circumstances, including the conduct’s frequency, severity, and interference with work.

The court concluded that the three incidents were isolated and disparate. Two involved different actors, one of whom was not shown to be a Goodfellow employee, and one involved an unknown person. The record did not show a sustained campaign of harassment or connect the events to one another. Although the court did not condone Bounds’s or Haskell’s conduct and recognized that Hill found the incidents humiliating and offensive, it held that the incidents were not objectively severe or pervasive enough under the governing legal standard. The court therefore granted judgment as a matter of law on the sexual-harassment claim.

Retaliation Claim

The court denied Goodfellow’s motion as to the retaliation claim. To prove retaliation, Hill had to show that she engaged in activity protected by Title VII, suffered an adverse employment action, and established a causal connection between the two. If Goodfellow offered a legitimate reason for its action, Hill also had to provide evidence that the reason was a pretext, meaning a stated reason masking retaliation.

The court found insufficient evidence that Hill’s discussions about Statewide flaggers constituted protected activity because the evidence did not show that she complained to Goodfellow about a racially discriminatory motive. The court also found insufficient evidence connecting her July 13 complaint to Garcia’s attempts to place her near the excavation area because the record did not show that Garcia knew about that complaint.

The court nevertheless held that the evidence supported the jury’s retaliation verdict concerning the September 18 Coach to Correct and one-day suspension. Goodfellow supervisor Sean Lennan knew about Hill’s July 13 complaint and issued the warning and suspension about two months later. Hill also presented evidence that she had previously received positive feedback, while Haskell received only a verbal warning after his conduct. In addition, Hill’s witness statement reported Haskell’s derogatory comment, and Lennan issued the Coach to Correct the same day. The court found that a reasonable jury could infer a retaliatory motive and find Goodfellow’s stated reason—insubordination and abandoning her post—pretextual.

Disposition

The court GRANTS Goodfellow’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the sexual-harassment claim and DENIES the motion with respect to the retaliation claim. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed the parties to file a joint proposed revised form of judgment by February 19, 2020.