Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that amorphous complaints to persons not authorized to accept complaints constituted evidence that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of her employer’s complaint procedures
• concluding the employer had established when it had been given sufficient notice by specifically designating the company representatives who should be contacted in cases of suspected harassment
• finding that Pub-lix’s maintenance and dissemination of a sexual harassment policy in compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines satisfied the requirement that an employer exercise reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment
• discussing the Faragher affirmative defense regarding an employer’s liability for a supervisor’s conduct
• “[D]issemination of an employer’s anti- 15 Case: 18-15305 Date Filed: 07/11/2019 Page: 16 of 17 harassment policy [is] fundamental to meeting the requirement for exercising reasonable care in preventing sexual harassment.”
• “Therefore, because we find no inherent defect in the complaint procedures established by Publix’s sexual harassment policy, nor any evidence that the policy was administered in bad faith, we conclude that Publix exercised reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).