Williams v. Spartan Communications
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5776 (March 30, 2000)
Facts
Veneal Williams (plaintiff) worked for Spartan Communications, Incorporated (Spartan) (defendant) selling advertising. Allegedly, her immediate supervisor, Mitchell Maund, sexually assaulted her on three separate occasions during business trips between 1992 and 1995. Williams reported the assaults to two Spartan managers, Greg Rose and Donna Groothedde, on May 24, 1995. She reported that one of the assaults occurred in Williams’s van while watching an R-rated movie that Maund had instructed that they watch together. Rose, Groothedde, and Spartan’s vice president and general manager, Jack West, met with Maund on May 25. Maund admitted to renting the movie. He resigned later that day as a result of the meeting with the Spartan managers. Spartan had an antiharassment policy in place, but Maund did not recall any training or discussion regarding the policy. Maund was close with several managers at Spartan. Several managers had made sexually explicit or misogynistic comments in the past to no correction or discipline. Williams resigned from her job at Spartan, citing the distress of continued sexual harassment. Williams brought a hostile-environment claim against Spartan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Spartan, finding that Spartan had established an affirmative defense. Williams appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Motz, J.)
Dissent (Wilkinson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
