- YOUR WORKER IS PROTECTED IF HIS FIANCEE FILES A TITLE VII COMPLAINT
- APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE STEPS WILL PROTECT YOU FROM A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM
- YOUR EVALUATIONS, PROPERLY DONE, CAN STOP AN ADEA CLAIM
- YOUR PRIOR DECISION TO DISCIPLINE MAY STOP A RETALIATION CLAIM
- YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE POOR COMMUNICATION AND POOR INTERACTION SKILLS OF YOUR EMPLOYEE
YOUR WORKER IS PROTECTED IF HIS FIANCEE FILES A TITLE VII COMPLAINT
In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LLP, No. 09-291, decided January 24, 2011, a worker was fired after his fiancée filed a discrimination complaint against their mutual employer. The worker argued he should be protected under the retaliation provisions that cover workers who have opposed, filed charges or testified about discrimination. The worker was fired three weeks after his fiancée filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC against the company that employed both of them. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the worker falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII. The Court ruled that the worker was an employee of the employer, and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions.
The Court ruled that accepting the facts as alleged in that case, the worker was not an accidental victim of the
retaliation. The Court found that injuring the worker was the employer’s intended means of harming the fiancées.
Hurting the worker was the unlawful act by which the employer punished the fiancé. Therefore, the Supreme Court held
the worker was well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII. The employer argued that
protection for the worker would force the Courts to engage in difficult line-drawing. The Supreme Court held that this
did not justify a categorical rule that declines to protect third-party reprisals. The Court suggested that a fired
close family member would likely be protected while a mere acquaintance who is subject to a mild reprisal will almost
never be protected. The Supreme Court did not want to generalize beyond that ruling.
Return to Issues Menu
APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE STEPS WILL PROTECT YOU FROM A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM
In Sutherland v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 10-2214, January 21, 2011, S.D. Ind., the
Court ruled that the employer was entitled to judgment in a Title VII action alleging that the employer maintained a
hostile work environment by failing to take appropriate corrective steps with respect to sexual assault committed by a
male co-worker against the plaintiff. The Court held that the fact that the male co-worker had been accused of
inappropriate staring by another female co-worker years prior to the instant assault against the plaintiff did not
render the employer liable for failure to prevent the instant assault because the prior incident was different in
nature than the instant assault. Furthermore, the Court found that the employer could not determine the truth of the
plaintiff’s accusations following a three-day investigation into the plaintiff’s complaint against the male co-worker.
In addition, the employer changed the plaintiff’s work location and altered her schedule to minimize contact with the
male co-worker. The Court held these were sufficient measures likely to end further harassment by the co-worker.
Return to Issues Menu
YOUR EVALUATIONS, PROPERLY DONE, CAN STOP AN ADEA CLAIM
In Clark v. Matthews Intern. Corp., 2010 WL 5258481 (8th Cir. 2010), the Court held
that a former employee’s age was not the but-for reason for his termination during the employer’s reduction-in-force
(RIF). Therefore, the court found no violation of the ADEA. This was because the employer sought to raise the
sales-per-employee ratio. Furthermore, other work performed by the employer that the former employee did not perform
had a higher profit margin and was the type of work the employer sought to emphasize after the RIF. Finally, the
former employee received low marks for productivity in three annual reviews.
Return to Issues Menu
YOUR PRIOR DECISION TO DISCIPLINE MAY STOP A RETALIATION CLAIM
In Leitgen v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc., No. 09-1496, January 13, 2011, the
Seventh Circuit held that the employer should receive judgment in a Title VII action in which the former employee
alleged that the employer terminated the former female physician in retaliation for protesting her compensation scheme
which the former female physician contended was biased in favor of males. The termination came shortly after the
plaintiff’s last in a series of related protests based on her compensation level. However, there were several reasons
that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between her protest and her termination. First, the
employer explained that the former employee’s termination was based on her lack of interpersonal skills towards
hospital staff. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s problems with hospital staff were long-standing, were known to the
plaintiff and had predated her latest protest about her compensation level. In addition, the employer had been
considering disciplining the plaintiff because of her problems with hospital staff prior to her latest protest about
her compensation level. Finally, the plaintiff had been complaining about her compensation level for years without
any adverse consequence.
Return to Issues Menu
YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE POOR COMMUNICATION AND POOR INTERACTION SKILLS OF YOUR EMPLOYEE
In Jakubowski v. Christ Hospital, Inc., 2010 WL 4961717 (6th Cir. 2010), the court found
that the proposed accommodation by the employee family practice medical resident was not a reasonable one under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employee’s requested accommodation was that he wanted the hospital
physicians and staff to have "knowledge and understanding" of his Asperger’s Disorder. The Court held that
this was not a reasonable accommodation because the employee could not perform the essential job functions of
communicating with professional colleagues and patients in ways to insure patient safety. Therefore, the employee was
not an otherwise qualified individual under the ADA as required to support his disability discrimination claim.
Return to Issues Menu