The opinion of the court was delivered by: Greenaway, District Judge.
The pertinent facts, taken in the light most favorable to Newsome as
the non-moving party, are as follows: Newsome met Coleman prior to her
employment with the AOC. At that time, Coleman was an adjunct professor
at Essex County Community College in Newark, New Jersey, and Newsome
worked in the college's Offender Aid and Restoration Program. See Newsome
56.1 Statement ¶ 11. In 1993, Coleman encouraged her to apply for a
position as a Community Development Specialist, a function akin to a
social worker, with the AOC's Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program
("JISP"), where Coleman was the Regional Supervisor for the Northern
Region. See id. at ¶ 12; Coleman Ex. A; Tr. of Oral Arg. at 25; AOC
56.1 Statement at ¶ 3. During her JISP interview, Coleman asked
Newsome whether she was single, dating someone, or if she had any
children. See Newsome Ex. X, Newsome Dep. at 75.*fn2 After the interview
process, Newsome accepted an offer to join the JISP as a Community
During the relevant time, Newsome reported to Coleman. Defendant Philip
J. Hill was the Director of the JISP and the person to whom Coleman
reported. Defendant Bobby E. Battle was the Chief of the AOC's Equal
Employment Opportunity Office ("EEO/AA").*fn3
At some point later in 1993, Coleman paged Newsome on a Saturday
morning and asked her to meet him at a local diner to discuss a case.
See Newsome 56.1 Statement ¶ 21; Newsome Ex. BB, Newsome Dep. at 63;
Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 16. Newsome informed Coleman that
she was busy and planned to go running, but Coleman insisted that she
meet him. See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 16. At the diner,
Coleman spoke to Newsome about JISP cases assigned to staff members other
than Newsome. See id.; Tr. of Oral Arg. at 25-26. Coleman's son was
present at this meeting, during which Coleman made "inappropriate
comments" that made Newsome uncomfortable. Newsome Ex. CC, Newsome Dep.
Later that day, Coleman appeared at a local park where Newsome was
jogging. See Newsome Ex. FF, Newsome Dep. at 66.*fn5 Newsome noticed
Coleman in the park when she "felt someone behind [her]." Newsome Ex.
GG, Newsome Dep. at 71. They jogged together for a while in the park,
during which time Coleman mentioned that his fiancée was
overweight and that she (Coleman's fiancée) complained that
Coleman hired women with large breasts. See id. When Newsome was in her
car about to leave the park, Coleman came over to her car, leaned in the
open window, and attempted to kiss her. See Newsome Ex. HH, Newsome Dep.
at 73; Griffin Cert. Ex. EZ, Newsome Dep. at 18. Newsome turned her head
away to avoid his advance. See id.
In November of 1993, while Newsome was working in the field, at a high
school in Paterson, New Jersey, Coleman paged her and directed her to
meet him at Independence High School in Newark. She arrived before
Coleman. When Coleman arrived, he introduced Newsome to the staff and
explained that he had brought Newsome there for a Thanksgiving festival.
Newsome became uncomfortable when she realized that no other JISP staff
members were present. See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 19.
Following the function, while Newsome was speaking with a male high
school employee, Coleman approached and asked the man "What are you doing
talking to her? She's with me." Id. at 19-20.
Newsome states that during the time she was under Coleman's
supervision, he "was always hugging." He would pull Newsome toward him
"like he was squeezing [her] breasts into his chest." Newsome Ex. EE,
Newsome Dep. at 89. Coleman would hug Newsome from time to time in the
mornings, sometimes coming up behind her and massaging her shoulders.
See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 20, 23.*fn6
At one point, in 1994, while Newsome was speaking with Betsy
Fermaintt, a JISP clerical employee, Coleman walked into the office and
attempted to hug Newsome. Newsome pushed him off of her and walked away.
A few days later, Newsome informed Coleman that she did not want him to
touch her. He stopped for a period of time and then began again to
touch, grab, and hold Newsome's hand. See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome
Dep. at 22; Newsome Ex. TT, Fermaintt Dep. at 13.
Newsome also states that Coleman made inappropriate remarks of a sexual
nature at staff meetings. He commented about the body parts and physical
appearance of other female staff members. He also commented that the noise
a woman makes while sneezing correlates with the noise she makes during
intercourse. See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 23-24; Newsome Ex.
VV, Griggs Dep. at 27.
Defendants assert, and the record reflects, that from at least as early
as January 1985, the AOC had anti-harassment policies in place. The AOC
anti-harassment manuals note that sexual harassment violates the AOC's
policies and federal and state law. The materials define sexual
harassment, detail employees' rights, and outline a procedure for formal
and informal complaints. See Battle Cert. Exs. A, B. The complaint
procedure set forth in the materials specifically explains that victims
who are harassed by an immediate supervisor should bypass that individual
and file a written complaint with the Administrative Director of the
Courts. See id.; AOC 56.1 Statement ¶ 9.
On or about January 12, 1995, the state judiciary issued a new
anti-harassment policy. See Battle Cert. Ex. C. This policy again made
clear that sexual harassment would not be tolerated, and set forth the
formal and informal complaint procedure. As with the prior
anti-harassment materials, the 1995 policy provided that victims should
bypass their immediate supervisor if he or she were the alleged
harasser. See Battle Cert. Ex. D.
The anti-harassment materials were posted and distributed to all
judiciary employees. See Battle Cert. ¶ 2, 6; Battle Dep. at 30
(attached to AOC Reply Br.). Newsome received a copy of the sexual
harassment materials when she arrived at the JISP in 1993. See Griffin
Cert. Ex. F, Newsome Dep. at 26. In addition, Battle conducted ongoing
training for all employees, including supervisory personnel such as Hill
and Coleman. See Battle Cert. ¶ 7.
In October 1995, defendant Battle conducted a sexual harassment
training for the JISP Northern Region staff. See Newsome Ex. 5, Newsome
Dep. at 14.*fn7 At a staff meeting on November 8, 1995, Gina Evans,
another JISP staff member, who has also alleged that she was harassed by
Coleman, announced that Coleman treated one staff member more leniently
because "she had something over [his] head." Coleman Aff. ¶ 61; Ex. N
to Coleman Br. in Support of Summ.J. (New
some's "Chronological Order of Incidents") (hereinafter "Newsome
Chrono"). At a staff meeting the following week, on November 15, 1995,
Coleman announced that he had heard that Newsome believed he was
harassing her. See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 25. Following the
November 15 meeting, Newsome contacted defendant Hill, who had left the
meeting prior to Coleman's comment, and told him that she wanted to file
a formal harassment complaint. See Griffin Cert. Ex., E, Newsome Dep. at
37, Ex. F, Newsome Dep. at 19.
The following day, November 16, 1995, Newsome spoke with Hill again and
requested a transfer to a new supervisor. That day, Kevin Brown became
Newsome's supervisor. See Griffin Cert. Ex. E, Newsome Dep. at 39-40.
Every other aspect of Newsome's job remained unchanged.
On November 28, 1995, Newsome met with Hill again, who informed her
that he had by that time told Coleman that she would be filing a formal
complaint. See Newsome Chrono.*fn8 Hill put Newsome in touch with
defendant Battle, with whom Newsome filed an official complaint alleging
"ongoing sexual harassment since being employed with the JISP." See
Newsome Chrono; Griffin Cert. Ex. F, Newsome Dep. at 21-22; Newsome Ex.
NN. She requested that she be assigued to a new supervisor, that the
harassment cease, and that she be treated with "respect and dignity."
Newsome Ex. NN.*fn9
In May 1996, the EEO/AA released the report of its investigation into
Newsome's harassment complaint. Over the course of the investigation,
defendant Battle interviewed Newsome, Coleman, and eight other JISP
employees concerning Newsome's allegations. The report concluded that
Newsome's claims were "unsubstantiated." Newsome Ex. PP.
On March 15, 1996, Newsome filed a complaint with the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which alleged that
Coleman subjected her to sexual harassment from the time she was hired.
She alleged that Coleman tried to kiss her on numerous occasions, the
last of which was in 1994. She further alleged that Coleman manipulated
his position as her supervisor to get her to go places with him, and that
he constantly touched, hugged, and kissed her, and made comments of a
sexual nature. See Battle Cert. Ex. K. The EEOC issued Newsome a
right-to-sue letter on October 31, 1996. See Newsome Ex. BBB.
I. Standard for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) when the
moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the evidence establishes the moving party's entitlement to judgment
as a matter of law. See Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265
(1986); Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp., 79 F.3d 1358, 1366 (3d Cir.
1996). In making this determination, the Court must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmovant. See Hullett v. Towers, Perrin,
Forster & Crosby, Inc., 38 F.3d 107, 111 (3d Cir. 1994); National State
Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of N.Y., 979 F.2d 1579, 1581 (3d Cir.
Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the party
opposing the motion must establish that a genuine issue as to a material
fact exists. See Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Lacey Township,
772 F.2d 1103, 1109 (3d Cir. 1985). The party opposing the motion for
summary judgment cannot rest on mere allegations and instead must present
actual evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact for
trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct.
2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Siegel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express,
Inc., 54 F.3d 1125, 1130-31 (3d Cir. 1995). "[U]nsupported allegations in
[a] memorandum and pleadings are insufficient to repel summary judgment."
Schoch v. First Fidelity Bancorporation, 912 F.2d 654, 657 (3d Cir.
1990); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (requiring nomnoving party to "set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial").
If the nonmoving party has failed "to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and
on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial, . . . there
can be `no genuine ...