Tiffany D. Shaw v. Autozone, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “an employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not allevi- ate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment”
• finding that the anti-harassment policy to be effective because it provided, inter alia, for multiple mechanisms for the prompt resolution of complaints
• “Accordingly, we conclude that an employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment.”
• “The first prong of the Ellerth affirmative defense also requires AutoZone to prove that it exercised reasonable care to respond to the sexual harassment.”
• \Because Shaw never informed AutoZone of Noble's alleged harassment . . . there was nothing for AutoZone to respond to.\
• copy of harassment policy given to each employee in employee handbook and training provided periodically to managers on the company's sexual harassment policies and guidelines

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).