Cathy Sellars, et al. v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Section 703(a) of Title VII forbids an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex. An employer is liable for co-worker sexual harassment if the employer was negligent in its response to a complaint about such harassment. The question presented is: Where an employee complains to her employer about sexual harassment, does the employer fully satisfy its legal obligation under Title VII if it stops the harassment of that employee by the particular harasser complained of (the rule in the Eighth Circuit), or must the employer also take action to deter future harassment by other potential harassers (the standard in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits)?

Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer to “discriminate against” an employee who opposes discrimination forbidden by section 703 of Title VII. Under the employer’s policy in this case, the court of appeals noted, “complaining of sexual harassment would directly lead to a net decrease in pay.” The question presented is: If under an employer’s policy a complaint of sexual harassment would “directly lead to a net decrease in pay” to the complaining employee, is that policy a per se violation of section 704(a), regardless of the employer’s motivation in adopting the policy?