11-13-2025
Sophia O’Neill worked as a teaching assistant and lab manager at the University of Pennsylvania. She claimed that one of the male students in her lab harassed and physically intimidated her. O’Neill reported the improper conduct, including a series of romantic messages, to the university. The university created a safety plan to protect O’Neill. However, O’Neill wanted the university to go further and prohibit the student from working in the lab or interacting with her. When the university did not agree to all her terms, O’Neill did not return to work. She went on to claim that she received a negative job reference after her complaint.
A federal district court considered O’Neill’s claims against the university based on the conduct of the student, who was not a university employee. The court stated that the student’s behavior could not be excused. A reasonable jury could find that the student harassed O’Neill based on her sex and that harassment was severe or pervasive. However, there was no evidence for a jury to hold the university liable for the student’s conduct. In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on recent guidance from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (of which the district court was not a part). For the university to be liable, “An employer must desire the intended harassment or be substantially certain it will occur to be liable for conduct by persons not in its employ who harass its employee.” The district court considered that case a prediction for how its own Third Circuit Court of Appeals would rule. The district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the university met the standard for third-party liability set by the Sixth Circuit.
Employers should continue to be aware of the potential implications of third-party harassment.