A federal appeals court recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a staffing firm, holding that two temporary workers failed to demonstrate the staffing firm knew about or was in the position to correct alleged harassment by a client’s employee.

The temporary workers alleged they were separately mistreated by the same client employee—subjected to racial harassment, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the staffing firm was not liable for several reasons: first, neither worker reported the abuse to the staffing firm during the tenure of their assignments—which was a requirement of the staffing firm’s written antiharassment policy—only advising the staffing firm once they quit their assignments. The staffing firm also immediately offered one worker the opportunity to find new assignments, but she chose not to pursue the opportunity. Upon learning of the second worker’s experience, the staffing firm immediately engaged the client, which launched an investigation. Because the staffing firm never fired the workers, their retaliation claims were also rejected.

Staffing firms and clients are joint employers for purposes of compliance with all equal employment opportunity laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just like other types of employees, temporary employees are protected by employment laws—including those pertaining to harassment. Clients can be liable if their internal employees subject temporary workers to unlawful harassment, such as a hostile work environment or quid pro quo sexual harassment. Staffing firms should have written antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies that require temporary workers to promptly report any allegations or concerns. ASA offers state-specific, customizable offerings for harassment prevention training—learn more at americanstaffing.net.

To read the case, see Arredondo v. Elwood Staffing Servs. Inc., 2023 WL 5490254 (Fifth Cir. 2023).