FOLLOW US

The Sixth Circuit has upheld a jury's verdict supporting a commercial diver’s claims of workplace harassment, marking a key victory in the VRHabilis Sex Harassment Verdict. Ariel Schlosser accused her employer, VRHabilis LLC, of subjecting her to weeks of belittlement and gender-based ostracism, allegations that culminated in a $58,000 jury award for back pay.

VRHabilis Sex Harassment Verdict : Panel Rejects VRHabilis' Appeal

A three-judge panel affirmed Schlosser's victory on Monday, finding that her evidence of verbal abuse and isolation during her 10-week tenure with the environmental cleanup company sufficiently demonstrated a hostile work environment. Schlosser, who worked as a diver cleaning up explosive remnants, had testified that her male colleagues and supervisors berated and ostracized her due to her gender.

VRHabilis challenged the verdict, arguing that certain incidents of harassment were isolated and shouldn’t have been factored into the broader claim. But the court disagreed, stating that these actions couldn’t be "cleanly segregable into two neat buckets," according to U.S. Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay, writing for the panel.

Jury's Decision Stands Despite Limited Damages

Following a four-day trial and three days of deliberation, the jury sided with Schlosser on her Title VII hostile work environment claim but rejected claims of sex discrimination and retaliation. Schlosser was awarded $58,000 in back pay but received no compensatory, nominal, or punitive damages.

Judge Clay explained that even acts which don't independently qualify as discrimination may still contribute to a hostile work environment. "Actions that may not, on their own, constitute Title VII discrimination may nonetheless contribute to a jury's evaluation of the overall environment in which the plaintiff worked," he wrote.

Harrowing Experiences and Gender-Specific Harassment

Schlosser’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, detailed how her supervisor regularly subjected her to verbal abuse, taking her off diving rotations while allowing a male counterpart to remain on. She also lost her driving privileges after getting stuck in the mud, even though a male colleague who damaged a truck in a separate incident kept his driving duties.

Further, she alleged that her male colleague cursed at her, used expletives, and threatened to make her life "a living hell." The appeals panel found that such behavior, coupled with gender-specific slurs, provided ample evidence for a jury to conclude the harassment was based on Schlosser’s gender.

VRHabilis Sex Harassment Verdict : Personal Conflict or Gender-Based?

Judge Clay acknowledged that VRHabilis attempted to argue that Schlosser's treatment may have stemmed from personal conflict rather than gender. However, he emphasized that the court would not reweigh the jury's evaluation of the evidence.

VRHabilis also argued that the harassment was neither "severe nor pervasive" enough to justify liability. However, the panel dismissed this argument, criticizing the company's approach of dissecting incidents instead of considering the overall context.

Schlosser's Legal Victory Nears Finality

G. Brandon Hall, representing Schlosser, stated that his client "has spent the past eight years fighting to vindicate her rights and the rights of other female employees." Hall added that Schlosser is pleased to be "one step closer" to leaving the ordeal behind her.

VRHabilis declined to comment on the ruling.

The Sixth Circuit panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Danny J. Boggs, Eric L. Clay, and Julia Smith Gibbons. Schlosser was represented by attorneys from The Employment & Consumer Law Group LLC, while VRHabilis was defended by Kramer Rayson LLP.