Employment Law

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30442
• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Date: 01 April 2018

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR APRIL 2018

10 © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots� Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues�

Title VII

Monitoring employee’s restroom visits

crosses the line

A little over a year after Jessica Daquilla began

working at the Murray Post Ofce in 2014, she led

a suit asserting several claims� One of them was that

Postmaster Sean Clark had created a hostile work

environment�

Daquilla alleged that Clark was usually “hateful and

demeaning” to female employees, constantly stared

at her and was often belittling toward her� She also

claimed he: (1) told her a monkey could do her job; (2)

refused her request to skip lunch so she could catch up

with work; (3) had a female co-worker follow her into

the ladies’ room to make sure she was not wasting time;

and (4) smiled after berating another female employee

until she cried� Daquilla further alleged that another

female employee “left the ofce because of Clark�”

The USPS led a motion for summary judgment�

District Judge Thomas Russell rst ruled that the

vast majority of the alleged conduct was not frequent

enough because there were only a few alleged inci-

dents over a period of a year� He also said other courts

had previously ruled there was no “hostile work

environment” where the alleged conduct included

staring, making occasional disparaging comments

and treating female workers in a hostile, harassing

way with an air of intimidation and discrimination�

However, he was troubled by the allegations of

monitoring Daquilla in the restroom� The judge ruled

that if it actually happened, such an invasion of pri-

vacy would constitute highly inappropriate behavior,

and would be humiliating and embarrassing�

It was also important to Judge Russell that Da-

quilla had alleged incidents between Clark and

other female employees� He ruled they were certainly

relevant in a hostile work environment case because

it showed that Daquilla was aware of the manner in

which the postmaster was allegedly treating other

members of her gender� Reciting the alleged incidents

of the postmaster making one female employee cry,

and causing another female to “leave the ofce,” the

judge held there was evidence that Clark specically

targeted women in the post ofce with unfavorable

treatment that directly interfered with the workow

in the ofce and caused humiliation and embarrass-

ment to them� He also concluded that the allegedly

inappropriate conduct persisted for approximately a

year, because it purportedly began as soon as Clark

started work there in 2014�

The defendant argued that the allegations merely

described unpleasant interactions between an em-

ployee and a supervisor that were common and usual

activities in the workplace�

EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ But Judge Russell ruled

Daquilla had presented evidence of conduct that, if it

really happened, tended to show that Clark’s behavior

toward females was motivated by a desire to discrimi-

nate� He refused to grant summary judgment, ruling

that there was no legitimate and nondiscriminatory

reason for having females followed into the restroom�

[Daquilla v. Brennan, U�S� District Court for the

Western District of Kentucky, No� 5:15-CV-175,

10/11/17]�

Threats of violence

Employees should never threaten physical

violence

Laurie Jolly was an administrator at the Dwight

D� Eisenhower Army Medical Center�

In May 2014, she met with Medical Expense Re-

porting System Chief Yolanda Kelly to request that

she be allowed exible work hours� At that meeting,

Jolly allegedly: (1) asked Kelly if she had heard about

the Camp Lejeune and Fort Hood shootings and (2)

said her supervisors needed to be careful, to leave her

alone and not to mess with her�

Three days later, Jolly purportedly stated to Kelly

that “her family was bleeding because of the issues

with her pay�” Kelly viewed Jolly’s demeanor at that

time to be “serious and very resolved�”

In June, the Army notied Jolly that it was propos-

ing her removal because she had made “inamma-

tory and/or menacing comments which reasonably

placed fellow employees in fear�” It charged that

Jolly’s statements implied violence toward individu-

als that caused Jolly frustration at work, and that

they “seemed to be less emotional and exhibited a

… resolve�” Jolly responded that her comments were

not threats, but were merely rhetorical�

However, Jolly’s ultimate supervisor decided to