Patricia David, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Williamthomas, National Assistance Bureau, Inc., A.k.a.gardendale Nursing Home, Defendants-appellees, 120 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 120 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 1997) Aug. 29, 1997

Stephen A. Strickland, Cecilee R. Beasley, Richard S. Jaffe, Richard S. Jaffe, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lawrence B. Clark, Jolee Hancock Bollinger, Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, AL, for SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

David M. Loper, Campbell & Waller, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for National Assistance Bureau & William Thomas.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (No. CV-95-B-6-S), Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, Judge.

Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON* , Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

With respect to the summary judgment in favor of SmithKline, we assume arguendo, but need not decide, that an employer may be liable under some circumstances in a case involving harassment of an employee, not by the employer or its employees, but by a third person. However, we conclude on this record that SmithKline's response to plaintiff's reports of harassment was reasonable in light of the options available to SmithKline.1 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the judgment affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants except SmithKline. Although I recognize that SmithKline's options were limited because the harasser was a customer and not an employee, and although I acknowledge this is a close question, I would conclude that the record discloses a genuine issue of fact as to whether SmithKline's response to the harassment was reasonable.

 *

Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation

 1

Plaintiff's other arguments on appeal are without merit and warrant no discussion

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.