September 30, 2025|Publications
September 30, 2025 | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished opinion, Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P., Brinker International, Inc., and Brinker Arkansas, Inc. (collectively “Brinker” or “Defendants”) in a Title VII enforcement action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC alleged that a 32-year-old cook at a Chili’s restaurant in Benton, Arkansas, subjected several teenage employees to sexual harassment and that Brinker failed to prevent or properly address the misconduct. The agency further claimed that one employee was constructively discharged as a result. Judge Baker rejected those claims, finding that Brinker took prompt remedial action upon receiving its first complaint, that the alleged conduct did not meet the Eighth Circuit’s demanding “severe or pervasive” standard, and that the record contained no evidence that management knew or should have known of the harassment earlier.
Relevant Background
The EEOC initiated the lawsuit in September 2022 under § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), on behalf of four former employees of Chili’s Grill & Bar in Benton, Arkansas. The charging party, Emily Page, and three other alleged victims—Miranda Bentz, Chloe Holdcraft, and Evening Sharp—were between sixteen and seventeen years old when employed by Brinker’s operating entity. Each alleged that a co-worker, D.J. Thompson, engaged in inappropriate verbal and physical conduct during their overlapping shifts between December 2020 and April 2021.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, Brinker and its local managers ignored warning signs of misconduct and failed to prevent ongoing harassment. The record, however, reflected that the company maintained written anti-harassment and equal employment opportunity policies distributed to all team members. Those policies prohibited discrimination on any protected basis, required immediate reporting of misconduct to management or to corporate “PeopleWorks” (Brinker’s human resources division), and provided a toll-free hotline for Team Member Relations (“TMR”) reports. Each new hire signed an acknowledgment form confirming receipt and understanding of those policies, including a commitment to ask for clarification where needed.
The undisputed evidence showed that no formal complaints were made to management before April 16, 2021. On that date, a shift lead, Alyssa Downie, observed that one of the employees, Holdcraft, appeared distressed. When asked what was wrong, Holdcraft reported that Thompson had made repeated comments about her and another teen co-worker’s appearance, allegedly telling them they were “hot” and attempting to touch them. Downie promptly reported the allegations to the restaurant’s Managing Partner, Robert Brown, that same night. The next day, Brown consulted with the area Director of PeopleWorks and began separating the alleged harasser from the complainants by reassigning shifts.
On April 18, 2021, two additional employees—Page and Bentz—reported that Thompson had allegedly followed Page into a walk-in cooler and attempted to kiss her, and that he had placed his hand inside Bentz’s pants over her underwear. Brinker’s management immediately sent Thompson home, restricted him from returning to work pending investigation, and notified corporate HR. Within days, Brown formally requested a corporate-level inquiry.
The company’s internal investigator, Brian “B.J.” Marshall, opened a TMR investigation on April 20, 2021. He attempted to interview each complainant, though some initially declined to participate. When Page and Bentz later provided statements describing the alleged conduct, Marshall obtained corroborating evidence, including a photograph allegedly sent by Thompson to Page. On May 5, 2021—less than three weeks after the first report—Marshall recommended termination, and Brinker ended Thompson’s employment that same day.
The EEOC nevertheless alleged that Brinker’s response was inadequate, arguing that the company had “constructive notice” of harassment months earlier through employee gossip and that its investigation was delayed. The agency also claimed that Page’s subsequent resignation constituted a constructive discharge, asserting that the restaurant failed to separate her sufficiently from Thompson before his termination.
Decision
Judge Baker granted summary judgment for Brinker on all claims. Applying the co-worker harassment framework established in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), the Court held that an employer is liable for harassment by a non-supervisory employee only if it “knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.” Hales v. Casey’s Mktg. Co., 886 F.3d 730, 735 (8th Cir. 2018).
First, the Court determined that the alleged conduct, though inappropriate, did not meet the “severe or pervasive” threshold required under Title VII. The record reflected isolated instances of alleged touching and verbal comments over a four-month period, none witnessed by others, and no evidence that the complainants reported the conduct before April 2021. Citing Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2002), LeGrand v. Area Res. for Community & Human Servs., 394 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2005), and Anderson v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc., 579 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2009), the Court emphasized that even more persistent or physical behavior had been deemed insufficient to establish a hostile work environment in prior Eighth Circuit cases.
Second, the Court rejected the EEOC’s constructive-notice theory, finding that “stray comments” such as “don’t flirt with minors” were insufficient to make the alleged harassment “obvious to everyone.” Weger v. City of Ladue, 500 F.3d 710, 722 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court found no record evidence that any manager or supervisor had actual or implied knowledge of misconduct before April 16, 2021, and credited Downie’s immediate report and Brown’s swift response.
Third, Judge Baker concluded that Brinker’s remedial measures satisfied the standard for prompt and effective action. The company initiated an investigation within four days of receiving the initial complaint, adjusted schedules, prohibited Thompson from returning to work until instructed, and ultimately terminated his employment. The Court described that response as “reasonably calculated to stop the harassment” under Engel v. Rapid City Sch. Dist., 506 F.3d 1118, 1125 (8th Cir. 2007), noting that “some delay” in fact-gathering is permissible to evaluate credibility. Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410, 419 (8th Cir. 2010).
The Court further rejected the EEOC’s argument that Brinker owed heightened obligations because the complainants were minors. Relying on EEOC v. V&J Foods, Inc., 507 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2007), the agency contended that employers of teenage workers must adopt specialized training and supervision. Judge Baker declined to extend that doctrine to the Eighth Circuit, observing that Brinker’s written policies were “facially adequate” and that “each employee acknowledged reading and understanding them.” The Court found no evidence that the policies were confusing or inaccessible and held that Title VII imposes no additional duty “to prevent harassment by co-workers about which [an employer] was unaware”.
Finally, the Court dismissed the EEOC’s constructive-discharge theory. Page’s claim rested on her continued scheduling alongside Thompson before his termination, but the record showed that she voluntarily picked up some overlapping shifts, told management she “did not care if [Thompson] was there,” and later resigned at her parents’ insistence for unrelated reasons. Judge Baker emphasized that Brinker “was not required to fire [the alleged harasser] pending an investigation” and that the company’s actions were adequate under Poole v. S. Ark. Univ. Tech. Coll., No. 04-cv-1089, 2006 WL 1096373, at *5 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 25, 2006). Because the harassment ceased immediately after Brinker intervened, and because the investigation led to termination, no reasonable jury could find constructive discharge.
Judge Baker concluded that, although Thompson’s alleged conduct was “unacceptable,” the EEOC failed to produce evidence that Brinker violated Title VII. The Court therefore dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Looking Forward
For franchisors, multi-unit operators, and large employers, EEOC v. Brinker International illustrates how courts assess employer liability through the lens of prompt and documented remedial action. The decision reinforces that liability generally turns on the employer’s knowledge and response once an issue is reported, not on the mere existence of alleged misconduct.
In franchise systems, where day-to-day oversight often resides with local operators, this reasoning parallels the joint-employer framework. Franchisors that implement clear, accessible complaint channels and monitor compliance across locations may reduce potential exposure even when they do not control daily operations.
The Court’s refusal to adopt heightened duties for employers of minors also offers practical clarity for brands employing teenage workers. While more frequent training and supervision can be prudent, the Eighth Circuit has not yet imposed any special legal standard based solely on an employee’s age.
Ultimately, Brinker underscores the importance of a credible investigation process and consistent enforcement of anti-harassment policies. When employers take allegations seriously and respond swiftly, they are far better positioned to defend against Title VII liability claims.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
