Employee Could Not Show Employer Liable for Harassment

Takeaway: After the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized hostile work environment claims under Title VII, the court added a requirement to show employer negligence to prove harassment. Based on this requirement, an employee cannot establish actionable harassment when they do not report the situation promptly, or when the employer acts effectively to stop the harassment.

When an employer acted quickly once it learned of alleged harassment, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found no Title VII liability.

El Milagro manufactures and distributes tortilla products. It operates eight locations in Illinois and employs approximately 500 individuals. At the Chicago manufacturing facility involved in this case, the production department has multiple lines. Employees on the back line use machinery to make tortillas; employees on the front line pack the tortillas. 

Since the plaintiff joined El Milagro in July 2019, she has worked continuously in the production department on the second shift. Initially, the plaintiff was a passer. In that role, she verified the quality of newly produced tortillas and passed satisfactory items down a conveyor for packaging and organization. 

Her role later changed because a disability prevented her from moving the fingers on her left hand and she could not work a full eight-hour shift as a passer. Her supervisors therefore permitted her to work as a free person. In this capacity, the plaintiff substituted on the production line and spent the remainder of her shift performing sweeping and cleaning duties.

Because her supervisors did not require that she work on the production line for a full eight hours, some of her co-workers began to express discontent about her accommodation. At one point, they collected signatures with the intent of petitioning El Milagro to terminate the plaintiff’s employment. 

The record is unclear as to whether this petition reached El Milagro’s management, but the plaintiff reported her co-workers’ comments to the second-shift supervisor. He wrote a report to El Milagro’s HR department and then raised the issue to her co-workers during a scheduled preshift team meeting for production department employees. 

Newsletter: Subscribe to SHRM Workplace Compliance News

The plaintiff claimed that, although her co-workers’ adverse comments decreased for a while, they eventually became more frequent. The supervisor raised the issue again at another meeting. One of the co-workers who petitioned for the plaintiff’s discharge was a male employee who the plaintiff claimed sexually harassed her by inappropriately touching her three times the next year.

While she claimed that she verbally reported one incident to her supervisor two hours later, the supervisor denied this, and no report was made to HR. 

The plaintiff alleged that the co-worker sexually harassed her again in July 2020. The third and final alleged incident occurred on Aug. 29, 2020. 

The plaintiff then spoke with her supervisor and he told her that a report would have to be done because it was something serious. He obtained a written statement from the plaintiff and the alleged harasser, then wrote a report and sent it to HR along with the statements.

After concluding its investigation, El Milagro provided the plaintiff with a letter, dated Sept. 16, informing her that the case was closed and that it had told the co-worker in a “call of attention” letter to immediately change his behavior toward her. The plaintiff admitted that this had stopped the co-worker’s sexual harassment. While she claimed that other co-workers made harassing comments thereafter, she did not give their names to her supervisor and he could not investigate further. 

Policy: Anti-Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedure

The plaintiff filed suit against El Milagro alleging sexual harassment. El Milagro filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the 7th Circuit judges disagreed with each other as to whether the plaintiff’s allegations established sexual harassment and whether El Milagro was liable for any harassment. Yet two judges agreed that, whether the conduct created a hostile work environment or not, El Milagro had effectively and quickly addressed the harassment as soon as its supervisor learned about it. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the case at summary judgment.

Sanchez v. El Milagro Inc., 7th Cir., No. 24-3250 (May 27, 2026), petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc denied (July 9, 2026).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.