Texas Supreme Court Hands Employers a Big Win

Defending a sexual harassment lawsuit just got a little easier in some respects for employers in Texas. On June 11, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in Waffle House, Inc. v. Cathie Williams. The facts of this case (which we will briefly summarize below) gave rise to a typical sexual harassment lawsuit in Texas - a sexual harassment cause of action against the company under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, an assault cause of action against the offending employee, and a negligent retention and supervision cause of action against the company.

In this case, the Plaintiff Cathie Williams alleged a co-worker, Eddie Davis, regularly sexually harassed her and assaulted her. Specifically, Williams claimed Davis made unwanted sexual comments and gestures and flirted with Williams. Williams also alleged Davis pushed her into counters and the grill, held her arms with his body pressed against her, and rubbed his arm against her breasts. Ultimately, Williams sued Waffle House and Davis for the causes of action we outlined above (she later dismissed the assault claim against Davis).

A jury found in favor of Williams and Waffle House appealed. The 2nd Court of Appeals in Texas upheld the jury's verdict and Waffle House appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Waffle House contended the negligent supervision and retention cause of action should fail as a matter of law because Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code is the exclusive remedy for workplace sexual harassment.

In a 7-2 opinion, the Texas Supreme Court held Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code is the exclusive remedy for workplace sexual harassment and, therefore, preempts any negligent retention and supervision cause of action when such a cause of action is "entwined with the complained-of harassment." Essentially, the majority held the assault about which Williams complained (and which supported the negligent supervision and retention cause of action) arose from the "same boorish and objectionable conduct." The majority stated Davis' "conduct was assaultive because of the sexually offensive and provocative nature of his verbal and physical contacts with Williams."

As a result of the Texas Supreme Court's decision, the great majority of negligent supervision and retention claims filed in conjunction with sexual harassment claims will now fail. The Court did point out, however, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code "does not foreclose an assault-based negligence claim arising from independent facts unrelated to sexual harassment," but such claims are rare.

Accordingly, the question moving forward becomes whether or not an alleged assault is independent of the alleged sexual harassment. More succinctly stated, is the assault sexual in nature? As the dissent pointed out in this case, that is often a fine and blurred line. For the time being, though, employers should be pleased with this decision.