SCOTUS declines to hear female CRST drivers’ harassment suit

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a sexual harassment case filed by female CRST Expedited drivers.

On Monday, March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition filed by a group of women truckers asking the high court to reverse a decision made by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The class action lawsuit accused CRST of ignoring complaints of sexual harassment from female team drivers.

Plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide two questions:

1. When addressing sexual harassment complaints, is it enough for the employer to stop the harasser in question or does an employer have an obligation to prevent future harassment by other potential harassers?
2. If an employer’s sexual harassment policy directly leads to a net decrease in pay to the complaining party, does said policy violate Title VII?

Case background

Allegations by the three named plaintiffs tell a story of women CRST drivers stranded miles away from home with male co-drivers sexually harassing them, sometimes violently.

According to court documents, the three women were sexually harassed by a combined total of about 15 male drivers. Harassment went beyond verbal exchanges. One female driver said she woke up in the bunk to find her naked male co-driver on her. Another plaintiff claimed a male driver tore off her shirt as she struggled to escape. Two male CRST drivers threatened to rape a female co-driver. One male driver threatened to kill his female co-driver. There are more allegations, many of which are explicit.

In total, plaintiffs filed 10complaints to CRST officials. None of the accused harassers were fired or suspended for harassment. According to the petition, CRST’s common response was to pair the alleged accusers with male drivers only.

However, CRST’s alleged actions against accused harassers did not stop the harassment. In some cases, harassment intensified after the first complaint was filed, the plaintiffs said.

Additionally, plaintiffs experienced a decrease in pay by reporting sexual harassment. Upon filing a complaint, the female drivers were removed from the truck. Once a driver has been removed, she no longer earned the mileage-based rate that would have been paid for the rest of the trip had she not complained. However, the alleged harasser continued to get paid to complete the trip. Victims could not begin earning money until they resumed work driving another truck.

Harassed drivers named in the lawsuit quit driving for CRST within three to 14 months of being hired. They claim they were forced to resign by the repeated sexual harassment. Between 2013 and 2017, there were 135 instances in which female drivers were removed from CRST trucks, according to the lawsuit.

CRST mostly off the hook

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in a federal district court in 2015. Both a district and appellate court ruled in favor of CRST before the lawsuit was presented to the U.S. Supreme court.

On one hand, the district court found that the harassment was serious enough to create an unlawful hostile work environment. On the other hand, the court also found that CRST was not negligent. Specifically, the district court ruled that CRST reacted promptly to put a stop to the harassment by a particular alleged harasser.

However, that decision deviated from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order filed two decades ago, according to the plaintiffs. That ruling required an employer to respond to sexual harassment in a manner that would deter future harassment

Regarding the allegations of lost pay after being removed from a truck, the district court also sided with CRST. According to the court, “CRST had acted for benign motives” when removing the accuser from a truck. Precedent set by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals requires proof that an employer had acted with the purpose of forcing the plaintiff to resign.

The female drivers filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit, asking the court to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s standards when addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. It declined.

The Eighth Circuit also reviewed claims regarding loss of pay after filing a complaint. The appellate court acknowledged that such policies may “induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard conditions.”

Again, that was not enough to compel the court to reverse the lower court’s decision. The appellate court found that the policy to remove victims from a truck does not violate Title VII unless the policy singles out and applies solely to protected activity. Since CRST removes drivers for reasons other than sexual harassment, the Eighth Circuit denied the plaintiff’s request to reverse the district court’s decision. That decision contradicts a Seventh Circuit opinion, according to plaintiffs.

Female CRST drivers took their lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the case. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit ruling remains intact, sending the case back to the district court for further proceedings based on the appellate court’s order. LL