Why Title VII Does Not Require Employees To Get Therapy Or “Get Over It”
We’ve all been told to “get over it.” Not getting invited to lunch. Being left off an email. Losing out on a promotion. Having a coworker make an insensitive comment. Life is full of disappointments, and sometimes moving forward really is the healthiest response.
But “get over it” should never be an employer’s response to ongoing, pervasive sexual harassment.
People respond to trauma differently. Some employees immediately seek counseling. Others lean on family and friends. Some text a spouse, parent, sibling, or close friend because they simply need someone to understand what happened. Some continue working because they cannot afford to stop. Some stop eating or can’t sleep. Others do everything they can to make it through another workday. None of those responses makes the trauma less real. None excuses what an employer allowed to happen. In fact, those conversations and text messages often become some of the strongest evidence of an employee’s emotional distress because they capture the employee’s thoughts and emotions while the trauma is unfolding—not years later in a courtroom.
This brings us to today’s blog topic—EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., ___ F.4th ___, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130 (5th Cir. 2026). In this case, SkyWest argued it should not be held liable because it maintained a sexual harassment policy, investigated employee Sarah Budd’s complaints, and disciplined a few employees. Even if the company was liable, it argued Budd should recover less for her emotional distress because she allegedly failed to mitigate those damages by obtaining additional therapy or other treatment and should have been able to just get over it.
The evidence presented to the jury painted a far different picture. Budd testified that a supervisor asked whether she liked “whips and chains and leathers,” repeatedly made sexual jokes, called her into his office to ask personal questions, and suggested she be sold as a prostitute in Amsterdam’s red-light district. Coworkers openly discussed sex acts, joked about lubricant, viewed pornography at work, debated which women they wanted to have sex with during company trips, repeatedly used the word “rape,” and turned a doll attached to a candy jar into the subject of recurring rape jokes, even creating a mock Human Resources complaint accusing another employee of raping the doll. One coworker gestured toward his crotch and offered Budd “good face cream.” Another declared that women who report rape “just fucking want attention.” Budd estimated she heard the word “rape” approximately forty times in a single day. She repeatedly reported the sexual harassment, but it continued. According to the evidence, the abuse caused nightmares, headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and eventually medical leave. She leaned on family and friends, sent contemporaneous text messages describing what was happening, and struggled with the emotional impact long after the harassment occurred. Despite that evidence, SkyWest argued Budd should recover less because she did not do enough to overcome the emotional harm the jury found SkyWest had caused.
The jury agreed. It found SkyWest liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, awarding compensatory damages for Budd’s emotional distress and punitive damages. On appeal, SkyWest argued that its sexual harassment policy and investigation shielded it from liability, that Budd’s emotional distress damages should be reduced because she did not obtain enough therapy or other treatment, and that the evidence did not support punitive damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit largely rejected those arguments and affirmed the judgment.
This decision answers three important questions every employee should understand. Can an employer escape liability simply because it has a sexual harassment policy and conducts an investigation? Must an employee obtain therapy before recovering emotional distress damages under Title VII? And when may a jury award punitive damages against an employer that fails to stop sexual harassment?
Legal Takeaways
Title VII does not require an employee to mitigate emotional distress damages by obtaining therapy, taking medication, or otherwise proving the employee tried to “get over” workplace trauma. A jury may award punitive damages when an employer acts with malice or reckless indifference to an employee’s federally protected rights, even if the employer has written anti-harassment policies.
Can An Employer Escape Liability Just Because It Has A Sexual Harassment Policy, Conducts An Investigation, But Fails To Stop The Sex Harassment?
No. A written sexual harassment policy and an investigation can be evidence that my help an employer but are not enough in isolation. Under Title VII, an employer’s response must be reasonably calculated to end the harassment. If sexual harassment continues because the employer’s response was ineffective, the employer may still be liable.
SkyWest argued it had written anti-harassment policies, required sexual harassment training, investigated Budd’s complaints, and disciplined employees. According to SkyWest, those actions demonstrated a good-faith effort to comply with Title VII and therefore shielded the company from liability.
The jury disagreed because the evidence showed the harassment did not stop. Budd repeatedly complained about sexually explicit comments, rape jokes, pornography in the workplace, and other offensive conduct. Human Resources investigated, but the jury heard evidence that investigators failed to interview key witnesses, asked limited follow-up questions, and failed to uncover the full extent of the harassment. Some employees received written warnings, but the misconduct continued. A jury could reasonably conclude the investigation looked complete on paper but failed where it mattered most—it did not stop the sexual harassment.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Having a policy, conducting training, and opening an investigation do not automatically shield an employer from liability. The real question is whether the employer’s response was reasonably calculated to end the harassment. Under these facts, the Fifth Circuit held the jury was entitled to conclude it was not.
Too many employers believe checking the Human Resources box is enough. It is not. A sexual harassment policy is a starting point, not a defense. If an employer allows a hostile work environment to continue after learning about it, the policy may become evidence that the employer knew what Title VII required but failed to follow through.
The reality is that an employer’s good-faith compliance is measured by results, not paperwork.
Practical Tip: Report sexual harassment as soon as possible and keep copies of every complaint, email, text message, and Human Resources response. If the harassment continues after your initial report, continue documenting each new incident. Evidence showing that an employer knew about the misconduct but failed to stop it often becomes some of the strongest proof in a hostile work environment case.
Best Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blogs on Point:
Do Employees Have To Get Therapy To Recover Emotional Distress Damages Under Title VII?
No. Title VII does not require an employee to obtain therapy, take medication, or otherwise “get over” workplace trauma before recovering emotional distress damages. Congress expressly imposed a duty to mitigate lost wages, but it did not impose a similar duty for emotional distress damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to add a requirement that Congress chose not to include.
That issue became one of SkyWest’s primary arguments on appeal. The airline contended Budd’s emotional distress award should be reduced because she failed to sufficiently mitigate her injuries through therapy or other treatment. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument, holding that Title VII imposes no duty to mitigate emotional distress damages.
The Court reached that conclusion by starting with the statute itself. Title VII expressly requires employees seeking back pay to mitigate their lost wages. When Congress later authorized compensatory damages for emotional distress through 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, however, it said nothing about requiring employees to mitigate those damages. The Fifth Circuit held that omission mattered. When Congress includes a requirement in one part of a statute but omits it from another, courts generally presume the difference was intentional.
The Court also looked to the common law and found no established rule requiring victims to mitigate emotional distress damages when Congress enacted § 1981a. Without support in either the statutory text or the common law, the Fifth Circuit declined to create a new legal defense for employers.
That does not mean therapy is unimportant. For many employees, counseling, medication, or other treatment is an important part of healing after workplace sexual harassment or other traumatic events. It also can be powerful evidence. Therapy records, diagnoses, treatment notes, and testimony from treating providers often provide compelling proof of the nature, severity, and duration of an employee’s emotional distress. That evidence may significantly strengthen a damages claim.
The Fifth Circuit’s holding was simply that Title VII does not require an employee to obtain therapy before recovering emotional distress damages. Employees heal differently. Some seek professional treatment immediately. Others rely on family, friends, faith, or other support systems. Some cannot obtain treatment because of cost, availability, or the trauma itself. The absence of therapy may affect the amount and quality of evidence available in a particular case, but it does not create a legal defense for the employer. Employers often argue an employee’s emotional distress was not as severe because the employee never sought treatment. The Fifth Circuit rejected turning that argument into a legal requirement under Title VII.
Practical Tip: If workplace sexual harassment or other unlawful conduct affects your emotional well-being, preserve evidence of that impact. Text messages to family or friends, journal entries, emails, photographs, and medical records can all help demonstrate how the misconduct affected you. In SkyWest, Budd’s contemporaneous text messages became important evidence because they reflected her emotional condition while the harassment was occurring, not years later during litigation.
Best Sex Harassment Attorney Blogs on Point:
When Can A Jury Award Punitive Damages In A Sexual Harassment Case?
Punitive damages punish particularly blameworthy conduct. Unlike compensatory damages, which compensate an employee for losses such as emotional distress, punitive damages are designed to punish an employer and deter similar misconduct. They are reserved for the most serious Title VII violations.
Under Title VII, punitive damages generally require proof that an employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to an employee’s federally protected rights. An employer that makes a genuine good-faith effort to comply with the law ordinarily cannot be held liable for punitive damages.
SkyWest argued that standard protected it. The airline pointed to its written sexual harassment policy, employee training, investigation, and disciplinary actions as evidence of its good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.
The jury—and ultimately the Fifth Circuit—disagreed. The evidence showed that SkyWest knew about repeated sexual harassment, investigated Budd’s complaints, yet failed to stop the misconduct. The jury also heard evidence that the investigation failed to uncover the full extent of the harassment and that the employer’s response allowed the hostile work environment to continue. Under those facts, the Fifth Circuit held the jury could reasonably conclude SkyWest had not made a genuine good-faith effort to comply with Title VII.
This distinction matters. A handbook, annual training, or Human Resources investigation does not automatically shield an employer from punitive damages. Those measures matter only if they are used effectively. An employer cannot claim good faith by checking boxes while allowing unlawful harassment to continue. When an employer knows about sexual harassment but fails to take action reasonably calculated to stop it, a jury may conclude the employer acted with reckless indifference to federal law.
The reality is that an employer’s good-faith compliance is measured by results, not paperwork.
Practical Tip: If your employer investigates your complaint but the sexual harassment continues, continue reporting each new incident and preserve every response from Human Resources or management. Evidence showing that your employer knew its initial efforts failed, yet allowed the harassment to continue, may support not only liability but also punitive damages.
Best Employee’s Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:
What Should I Look For In The Best Employment Lawyer For A Sexual Harassment Case?
Sexual harassment cases are rarely won because an employee simply tells a compelling story. They are won because an experienced employment lawyer knows how to prove that story. The most important evidence is often hidden inside the employer’s Human Resources files, internal emails, text messages, witness statements, investigation notes, disciplinary records, training materials, and other documents that employees cannot obtain on their own. An experienced employment attorney knows how to uncover that evidence through written discovery, depositions, and other litigation tools. Just as importantly, an experienced trial lawyer knows how to present that evidence in a way that juries understand and trust.
At Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, representing employees is all we do. As one of the largest law firms in the United States dedicated exclusively to employees’ rights, we have the resources, experience, and courtroom success to stand up to employers of every size. We offer a free initial consultation, and our No Fee Guarantee means you pay no attorney fees unless we recover for you. Whether your case involves sexual harassment, retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, emotional distress, or another violation of employment law, our attorneys understand both the legal issues and the personal impact these cases have on employees and their families. If you believe your employer violated your rights, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today. The sooner an experienced employment lawyer becomes involved, the sooner critical evidence can be preserved and your legal rights protected.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. A written sexual harassment policy alone does not shield your employer from liability. Under Title VII, your employer’s response must be reasonably calculated to stop the harassment after learning about it.
Can I recover emotional distress damages if I never saw a therapist after sexual harassment at work?
Yes. Title VII does not require you to obtain therapy before recovering emotional distress damages. Although therapy can provide powerful evidence supporting your claim, the absence of therapy does not automatically prevent recovery.
Can repeated sexual jokes, pornography, or rape jokes create a hostile work environment?
Yes. Depending on the frequency, severity, and surrounding circumstances, repeated sexual jokes, pornography in the workplace, rape jokes, and other sexually offensive conduct may create an unlawful hostile work environment under Title VII.
Can my employer wrongfully fire me for reporting sexual harassment?
No. Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report sexual harassment or participate in a workplace investigation. A wrongful termination after making a good-faith complaint may support a retaliation claim.
Should I text my spouse, family, or friends about workplace sexual harassment?
Yes. Contemporaneous text messages, emails, and other communications with people you trust can become powerful evidence because they document your emotional condition while the harassment is occurring rather than years later during litigation.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This workplace sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, emotional distress, wrongful termination, and employment law blog provides general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Every employment situation is different, and the outcome of any claim depends on its specific facts and the applicable law. You should consult with a qualified employment lawyer regarding your individual circumstances and any applicable legal deadlines. No promises, guarantees, or predictions are being made regarding the outcome of any legal matter. This blog is a legal advertisement. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm or any of its attorneys.