U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1999

Pfau v. Reed

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 8, 1999 · King, Duhé, Wiener

167 F.3d 228; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1780; 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,714; 1999 WL 58739 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Fletcher v. United States Postal Service (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2024)
Metzinger v. Department of Veterans Affairs United States (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 2020)
Godoy, Judy and Audrey Perez v. Cancer Specialists of South Texas, P.A. (Tex. App. 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

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 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.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.