The question investigators didn't ask came back to derail the employer's defense
An Oregon appeals court sent a clear message to employers: inadequate harassment investigations can come back to haunt you, especially when critical questions go unasked.
The Oregon Court of Appeals on December 17 reversed a lower court's dismissal of sexual harassment claims against Jackson County, ruling that the case must go to trial. The decision highlights how an incomplete workplace investigation can unravel an employer's defense.
The case involves Alainna Tomlinson, who worked at Jackson County in Oregon. Her male coworker, who was in his fifties while she was in her twenties, had an office directly across the hall. Their jobs required regular collaboration.
According to court records, Tomlinson said the coworker would stare at her body during conversations, focusing on her breasts and lower region. The staring was persistent and obvious, she testified. He also lingered after their work discussions ended.
Things took a disturbing turn when another employee told Tomlinson about walking into the coworker's office and seeing him with his hands in his pants, appearing to masturbate while looking toward her office. The coworker had also asked another young female employee on a date, making her uncomfortable. When he asked Tomlinson out as well, she reported his behavior to her supervisor.
Jackson County did what many employers do. They placed the accused employee on administrative leave in November 2022 and launched an investigation. The investigation wrapped up with a finding of "insufficient evidence" to prove policy violations. The coworker returned to work in January 2023.
Here's where the investigation fell apart. During a deposition for this lawsuit in April 2024, the coworker admitted he had indeed masturbated in his office. He claimed that "98 percent of people do that on occasion." According to the coworker's testimony, the investigator didn't ask him directly about masturbating at work, though he said he would have disclosed it if asked.
Jackson County fired him shortly after that admission.
But by then, Tomlinson had already resigned. After the coworker returned to work in January 2023, her work life deteriorated. She testified that she was effectively working two jobs, maintaining her original caseload while taking on part-time responsibilities in another department. Her supervisors encouraged her to stay in the office across from the coworker. She had to shuffle between different offices. Though initially allowed to work remotely, that accommodation was later withdrawn.
The coworker's working conditions, meanwhile, remained largely unchanged. When Tomlinson learned she couldn't transfer to the other department full-time, she quit in July 2023. One supervisor later testified that a position could have been created for her, but the supervisor thought Tomlinson wasn't interested.
A trial court initially sided with Jackson County, granting summary judgment and dismissing the case. Tomlinson appealed.
The appeals court disagreed with the dismissal. Looking at the evidence through the lens most favorable to Tomlinson, the court found that a jury could reasonably conclude she faced a hostile work environment. The combination of unwanted staring, lingering, date requests, and the admitted workplace masturbation could meet the legal threshold for harassment claims.
Just as importantly for employers, the court questioned whether the county's investigation was thorough enough, given what later emerged during the coworker's deposition.
The court also found problems with how the county handled Tomlinson after bringing the coworker back. Requiring her to bounce between offices and balance dual responsibilities while denying remote work could discourage other employees from reporting harassment. The timing mattered too. These changes happened right after the coworker returned, suggesting a connection between her complaint and the treatment she received.
The case now returns to trial, where a jury will decide whether Jackson County is liable. Whitney Stark represented Tomlinson on appeal, while Madison T. Simmons argued for the county.
For HR professionals, the takeaway is uncomfortable but clear: investigations need to ask the hard questions directly, and accommodating the person who reported harassment shouldn't feel like punishment.
