e hair and put his mouth on her breast. Lockard immediately informed her manager of the incident and quit.At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Lockard against both Pizza Hut and the franchisee. Pizza Hut filed post-trial motions claiming Lockard could not hold Pizza Hut liable for customer-created hostile work environment. The trial court agreed.The Tenth Circuit reversed the trial court and ruled that employers could be vicariously liable under Title VII for acts of harassment by customers. The court reasoned that the proper focus of a hostile work environment inquiry is whether the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult. Thus, the court reasoned an employer who condones or tolerates the creation of such an environment should be held liable, regardless of whether a supervisor, co-employee, or a non-employee creates the environment.Accordingly, the court held that an employer may be liable for customer harassment if it fails to remedy or prevent a customer-created hostile work environment, of which it knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known. An employer who condones or tolerates the creation of such an environment can be held liable, regardless of whether a supervisor, co-employee, or a non-employee creates the environment. An employer may be liable for customer harassment if it fails to remedy or prevent a “customer-created” hostile work environment in which it knew about, or should have known.Implications of Lockard v. Pizza Hunt, Inc. Employers have an obligation to employees to pay careful attention to complaints by employees about customer/employee conduct. Employers should update policies to ensure that they have effective, well-established, well-distributed policies for addressing and correcting sexual harassment. Employers should train their employees in recognizing and preventing sexual harassment by co-workers and customers. Employe...
