Employment Law

• Published date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30417
• Date: 01 February 2018

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR FEBRUARY 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.

Gender Discrimination

Lack of evidence sinks former employee’s

suit

Maxine Jackson became the director of human

resources for the community of University Park in

May 2015.

In June, a relative of Village Trustee Joseph Rou-

dez resigned. Not long after that, Roudez allegedly

stated to Jackson that she was to give his relative his

job back immediately if she did not want a claim led

against her with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, was not to rock the boat and should

know her place.

In October, the village was in the process of sell-

ing the golf course it owned and operated. Prior to

the execution of a contract for sale, the prospective

buyer took possession and control of the property.

Jackson felt the village did not give the golf course

employees adequate notice of termination, and that

human resources protocol was not followed. She ad-

vised both the mayor and Village Manager Johnna

Townsend about the situation, and requested a copy

of the contract to ensure employee matters were

addressed. Jackson received a document that was

referred to as a contract. However, she complained

that the document was a rider that didn’t address any

employee issues.

At that time, Trustee Keith Grifn allegedly re-

ferred to Jackson when he stated to the police chief

“F—- that b——” and “nd a reason to arrest her

a—.” Jackson emailed Townsend about Grifn’s state-

ments, but nothing was done. When Jackson later

reminded Townsend about it, Townsend responded,

“I was told to terminate you by both Trustee Grifn

and Trustee Roudez.”

Jackson was red in January 2016. Her termina-

tion letter stated that it was due to budget problems.

Jackson led a suit claiming she was discriminated

against and harassed because of gender.

The village led a motion to dismiss.

District Judge Sidney Schenkier said Jackson had

failed to show that the comments by Roudez and Grif-

n, even if they reected sex-based animus—as op-

posed to their pique because of the resignation and the

golf course issues—played a role in her termination.

The judge said the only way those comments could

Discrimination

Employee’s proof insufcient to establish

discrimination or hostile work environment

In 1999, the Ofce of the New York State Comp-

troller hired Ngoc Le, a woman of Asian descent, to

work in its Albany ofce.

In 2011, Le reported to manager Tom Klim that

co-worker Michael St. Pierre had been following her.

No ofcial action was taken against St. Pierre.

Two years later, Klim allegedly asked Le to com-

plete a work task for which there were no established

procedures, and the lack of guidance had caused her

to make mistakes. Although Le claimed her errors

were xable, Klim allegedly yelled at her about those

mistakes in front of a co-worker.

In 2015, Klim reported to Human Resources that

Le was “staring at him.”

In November, co-worker Roberta Keaton reported

to her superiors that Le had told her to “make my day.”

In December, a different co-worker told Le that

some employees were afraid she was going to perform

similar actions as a couple that had been involved in

a terrorist attack.

In January 2016, HR employee Rachel Clevenger

“interrogated” Le regarding reports the department

constitute adverse employment actions was if they

had created a hostile workplace. However, he also

ruled that her allegations failed to do that.

The judge explained that a claim of a hostile work

environment must allege harassment that was both

subjectively and objectively so severe or pervasive as

to alter the conditions of employment. He also said

that offhand comments, isolated incidents and simple

teasing did not create a hostile work environment.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge ruled that the

alleged harassment was neither severe nor pervasive.

He explained that it could not have been pervasive

because Jackson had only set forth one comment by

each trustee. He also ruled that the alleged comments

were not severe enough to be actionable.

He granted the motion and dismissed those claims.

[Jackson v. Village of University Park, Illinois, U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

No. 17 CV 2313, 08/01/2017].