Excel Corporation v. Bosley

165 F.3d 635 (1999)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Excel Corporation v. Bosley

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
165 F.3d 635 (1999)

  • Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD

Facts

In 1990, Kristine Bosley (plaintiff) was a line worker on the kill floor of a meat-packing plant owned by Excel Corporation (Excel) (defendant). Excel also employed Johnson, Bosley’s husband, as a floater who worked at various stations when employees were absent. In 1993, Bosley and Johnson separated, but both continued to work for Excel. Johnson began to harass Bosley, calling her a bitch, slut, and whore. Johnson threatened to kill Bosley’s new husband, Jeff Bosley. Bosley reported Johnson’s conduct and her fear of Johnson to Excel management. Excel asked Bosley and Johnson to keep their problems at home. During one incident, Johnson threw meat at Bosley, which violated the work rules. On May 4, 1994, Bosley took personal time off due to the stress of working with Johnson. Bosley returned on May 9, and Johnson continued to verbally harass her. Bosley asked to leave her workstation twice, and her supervisor twice denied her. In response to Johnson’s harassment, Bosley pushed Johnson on the chest and told him to get out of her way. Excel placed Bosley on an indefinite suspension for pushing Johnson because physical contact between employees violated the work rules. Later, Bosley pushed past a supervisor to enter a room and the incident was reported as Bosley hitting the supervisor. On May 16, 1994, Excel fired Bosley for the events on May 9. However, Excel did not sanction Johnson at all. Bosley sued Excel, alleging a hostile work environment and sex-based disparate treatment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court denied Excel’s attempt to introduce evidence of Bosley and Johnson’s sexual relationship during the time of the alleged harassment. A jury found for Bosley on her hostile-work-environment claim and for Excel on Bosley’s sex-based disparate-treatment claim. Excel appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously ruled that evidence of Bosley and Johnson’s sexual relationship was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 412.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sippel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership