Joselyn Davenport, a female employee of Kelly Services, Inc. (“Kelly Services”), was assigned to work as a production associate at a manufacturing plant owned and operated by Nissan North America (“Nissan”), located in Canton Mississippi. During her tenure at the Nissan plant, Ms. Davenport worked on an assembly line installing brakes. Her line leader was Fred Tate. Both Ms. Davenport and Mr. Tate were supervised by Aaron Rodgers.

In fall of 2013, Mr. Tate exposed his genitals to Ms. Davenport at work. Ms. Davenport informed a coworker of the flashing incident. When the coworker confronted Mr. Tate about his behavior, he responded that Ms. Davenport was not supposed to tell anyone. At the time, Ms. Davenport did not inform her supervisors, including Mr. Rodgers, or any other employees of Mr. Tate’s inappropriate conduct.

Ms. Davenport continued to work with Mr. Tate following the incident for approximately two months, until approximately December of 2013, when she reported the incident to a Nissan employee. The Nissan employee ultimately reported the incident to the Human Resources Department on Ms. Davenport’s behalf. Ms. Davenport claimed that during the two months after the initial incident, Mr. Tate had also shown her photographs of his genitals and made sexual references.

Upon learning of Mr. Tate’s conduct, Nissan initiated an immediate investigation and interviewed all the parties involved. Ms. Davenport was eventually transferred to another work station but resigned the day after she was transferred. After her resignation, Ms. Davenport filed a Charge of Discrimination and ultimately filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Mr. Tate, Nissan and Kelly Services.

Despite the egregious conduct by Mr. Tate, the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed Ms. Davenport’s claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that Ms. Davenport failed to establish a prima facie case for a “hostile work environment.” In reaching its conclusion, the Court specifically found that: (a) Mr. Tate was not Ms. Davenport’s supervisor, as he had no authority to hire, fire, or discipline Ms. Davenport; (b) Ms. Davenport failed to introduce any evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Tate’s conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter a term or condition of her employment; (c) Ms. Davenport delayed in reporting the incident to Nissan/Kelly Services; and (d) the Defendants’ prompt investigation into the flashing incident contradicted Ms. Davenport’s claim that the Defendants were negligent in their handling of the incident.

As a guide for employers, this case illustrates the importance of (a) adopting, implementing and following clear anti-harassment and discrimination policies; and (b) promptly investigating and taking all necessary remedial actions with respect to internal complaints of sexual harassment.

Davenport v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al
3:14-CV-00671
Southern District of Mississippi