Employee's sexual harassment claim dismissed

• Published date: 01 June 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30787
• Date: 01 June 2020

JUNE 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

11

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC, A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

of co-workers. She also allegedly told human resourc-

es that the project manager discriminated against her

and treated her worse than every other employee in

the group who was either white or of Indian descent.

At some point, human resources facilitated a meet-

ing between the project manager and the plaintiff.

He allegedly apologized to the plaintiff during that

conference.

After she was red in February 2018, the plaintiff

led a suit claiming a hostile work environment in

violation of Title VII.

The plaintiff alleged that the project manager and

others had retaliated by making her working condi-

tions worse after he apologized to her. Admitting

that no racist comments or utterances had ever been

uttered in her presence, the plaintiff alleged: (1) she

was not treated as well as whites were treated on the

job; (2) one performance evaluation contained bla-

tant mischaracterizations and downright falsehoods,

whereas no white worker was treated that poorly;

and (3) her white co-workers had the ability to tele-

commute without prior approval but she could only

telecommute with upper-level approval.

The plaintiff also alleged that her supervisors:

(1) yelled at her, (2) ignored her at staff meetings,

(3) revoked her telecommuting privileges and (4)

falsely claimed she had received negative feedback

from others.

The AIR led a motion to dismiss.

The district court judge explained he was required

to evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including

the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its se-

verity, its offensiveness and whether it interfered with

the plaintiff’s work performance. He also explained

that a hostile environment could consist of several

individual acts that weren’t actionable on their own

but become actionable due to their cumulative effect.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ However, he ruled that the

plaintiff’s allegations didn’t depict incidents severe or

pervasive enough to be actionable.

He explained that other courts had previously

found that hostile work environments hadn’t been

created by such events as: (1) promotion denials;

(2) negative performance reviews; (3) being hired at

a lower grade than white employees; (4) accommo-

dation denials, including a request for a part-time

telework arrangement; (5) a supervisor’s “loud and

aggressive” statements; and (6) a supervisor’s “slam-

ming his hands on the desk” during meetings.

The judge dismissed the claim, stating that petty

insults, vindictive behavior and angry recriminations

weren’t actionable under Title VII.

[Dieng v. American Institutes for Research, U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 18-

cv-1220, 09/26/2019].

Sexual harassment

Employee’s sexual harassment claim

dismissed

The plaintiff began working as a housekeeper at

the Stephens County Fairgrounds in 2013.

In October 2016, the plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly

told her he had a dream about the two of them kissing,

and he also purportedly said she was a good kisser.

A month later, that supervisor allegedly told the

plaintiff he had another dream about them kissing.

In early December, the supervisor allegedly told

the plaintiff that he had a dream in which the two of

them had sexual relations.

At some unspecied time, the supervisor purport-

edly put his arm around her and told her that she

should come to him about “things that [were] going

on at the fairgrounds.”

According to the plaintiff, he also stopped by her

house and asked about her personal life and romantic

interests.

The plaintiff reported the supervisor’s alleged

actions to the fairgrounds director in January 2017.

In the ensuing investigation, the plaintiff purport-

edly admitted that the accused had never touched her

inappropriately, and the extent of the alleged sexual

harassment consisted only of comments she believed

were sexual in nature. However, she didn’t mention

that the supervisor had stopped by her house, because

she didn’t consider it a “sexual gesture,” and also

didn’t feel it was inappropriate.

The plaintiff led a suit that made several claims.

One was sexual harassment in violation of Title VII.

The defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment.

The district court judge said sexual harassment

was prohibited by Title VII only if it was so severe or

pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s em-

ployment and create an abusive working environment.

He also said that workplace conduct must be

judged by looking at all the circumstances, includ-

ing the frequency of the discriminatory conduct,

its severity, whether it was physically threatening or

humiliating and whether it unreasonably interfered

with the victim’s work performance.