AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiff, an employee at New Mexico State University, alleged that her supervisor made almost daily comments concerning her sexual orientation, creating a hostile work environment. The plaintiff was a member of two protected classes due to her gender and sexual orientation. Despite the presence of male co-workers during these comments, the plaintiff contended that the behavior was harassing, intimidating, and hostile, affecting her job performance. The harassment continued until her termination six months later.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Board of Regents of New Mexico State University, on the plaintiff's hostile work environment sexual harassment claim.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the supervisor's comments about her sexual orientation constituted a hostile work environment. Asserted that she was a member of two protected classes and that the harassment was based on her sex. Claimed that the employer was notified of the harassment but failed to take remedial action.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the harassment being because of her sex and the employer's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the harassment without taking remedial action. Argued that male co-workers were subject to the same conduct and that the plaintiff did not report the harassment until after her termination.

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact concerning the elements of a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim, specifically if the harassment occurred because of the plaintiff's sex and whether the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take remedial action.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment on the plaintiff's hostile work environment sexual harassment claim and affirmed the summary judgment on the plaintiff's discrimination claim.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the court found that the plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her hostile work environment sexual harassment claim. The court was not persuaded by the defendant's argument that the harassment was not based on the plaintiff's sex or that the employer lacked knowledge of the harassment. Evidence suggested that the plaintiff's supervisor made comments about her sexuality and that a co-worker had reported the harassment to the employer. The court also found that the defendant failed to make a prima facie case for the Faragher defense, as there was no evidence the plaintiff was made aware of the sexual harassment policy and grievance process. The court emphasized the need for caution in applying summary judgment and the importance of reviewing the record in the light most favorable to support a trial on the merits (paras 1-6).