167 F.3d 228 - Pfau v. Reed — 167 F.3d 228

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2018

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *229Bruce A. Coane, Coane & Associates, Jon Allan Haslet, Watts & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

¶2Ernest Carlos Garcia, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

¶3Paula Ann Brantner, San Francisco, CA, Don D. Sessions, Mission Viejo, CA, for National Employment Lawyers Ass’n, Amicus Curiae.

¶4ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

¶5Before KING, Chief Judge, and DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7This appeal is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of its recent decisions in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). See Pfau v. Reed, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 32, 142 L.Ed.2d 24 (1998), vacating 125 F.3d 927 (5th Cir.1997). Having reviewed these decisions and the parties’ supplemental briefs, we reinstate part 11(A) of our prior opinion and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-appellant Marie Pfau’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Pfau v. Reed, 125 F.3d 927, 932-34 (5th Cir.1997). The district court should reconsider its decision to grant summary judgment on Pfau’s claims of sexual harassment in the light of Faragher and Ellerth. Without intending to limit the scope of that reconsideration, the district court should address the issue of whether Pete Gonzales was Pfau’s supervisor under Far-agher and Ellerth and, if so, whether the defendant-appellee has established the affirmative defense outlined in those cases. Further discovery on those issues may be required. Without in any way intimating our view as to the merits of Pfau’s claims, we VACATE the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Pfau’s sexual harassment claims and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings.

¶8AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part. Each party shall bear its own costs.