From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pfau v. Reed

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 8, 1999
167 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1999)

Summary

affirming previous panel holding on that issue after remand from the United States Supreme Court, 125 F.3d 927, 932 (5th Cir. 1997)

Summary of this case from Rendon v. Potter

Opinion

No. 96-50916.

February 8, 1999.

Bruce A. Coane, Coane Associates, Jon Allan Haslet, Watts Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

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

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Alan D. Albright.

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DUHE and WIENER, Circuit Judges.


This 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 II(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 Faragher 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.

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


Summaries of

Pfau v. Reed

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Feb 8, 1999
167 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1999)

affirming previous panel holding on that issue after remand from the United States Supreme Court, 125 F.3d 927, 932 (5th Cir. 1997)

Summary of this case from Rendon v. Potter

dismissing federal employee's intentional infliction of emotional distress claims asserted under state law on grounds that Title VII preempts such claims

Summary of this case from Kuklinski v. Lew
Case details for

Pfau v. Reed

Case Details

Full title:MARIE PFAU, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM REED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Feb 8, 1999

Citations

167 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

Tagore v. U.S.

Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that her argument is not precluded by the Fifth Circuit's reading of…

Logan v. Nicholson

Because the case law discussed below requires a finding that those claims are preempted by federal law, they…