She reported her supervisor. He returned as her boss — then it got worse
A lawsuit filed against Panasonic Energy alleges repeated HR missteps turned a harassment complaint into a months-long breakdown in workplace accountability.
Harper Coté, a former apprentice at Panasonic Energy Corporation of North America, is suing the company in federal court, claiming she was sexually harassed by a coworker and a supervisor, that HR investigations fell short, and that the company retaliated against her when she pushed back. The case was filed on March 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Coté v. Panasonic Energy Corporation of North America, Case No. 2:26-cv-02139.
Coté started working at the company in March 2025 as a skilled machine technician apprentice tied to the company's new plant in DeSoto, Kansas. Within weeks, she says, a coworker began making sexually explicit remarks, touching her without permission, and appearing to film her. She reported the behavior in May 2025 to her apprenticeship manager, who initially responded by encouraging her to keep engaging with classmates. It took a second report — from a teacher — before the matter was referred to HR.
Even then, the accused coworker was not placed on leave. According to the filing, he remained on-site for roughly six more weeks and continued the behavior before eventually being let go.
The more complex situation, at least from an HR standpoint, involved Coté's production supervisor, Brian Simms. She alleges Simms made repeated comments about her body, called her "honey," mocked her name after she corrected him, and on one occasion asked whether she was moonlighting at a strip club — all in front of other employees. Simms was placed on paid leave and investigated. HR found his comments were inappropriate, but concluded they were not sexual in nature and that his intent was not to embarrass her. He returned as her supervisor with a written reminder about professional expectations.
What followed, according to Coté, was a cascade of decisions that made work untenable. She says she was moved to a different shift against her wishes, which forced her to drop out of her bachelor's degree program and lose her Pell Grant eligibility. She claims Simms told coworkers she had "asked for it," and that HR found those reports unsubstantiated.
Perhaps the most striking claim in the filing is that Coté was later assigned to work under a supervisor who, according to widely reported news accounts cited in the filing, had previously been charged with rape and aggravated sodomy and had lost his law enforcement certification as a result. The filing states that the company was aware of this history.
Coté resigned in September 2025, saying conditions had become intolerable. She is bringing claims under Title VII for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
The case is at its earliest stage, and no determination has been made on any of the claims. Panasonic Energy has not yet filed a response.
Still, the allegations raise pointed questions for HR teams everywhere: When a harassment complaint is substantiated — even partially — what does an adequate response actually look like? And who bears the risk when the answer falls short?
