Employment Law

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30328
• Date: 01 June 2017
• Published date: 01 June 2017

10

JUNE 2017NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

© 2017 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.

Hostile Work Environment

Lack of evidence dooms former

employee’s suit

Penny Case was the only female maintenance

worker at Van Duyn Home and Hospital, which was

owned and operated by Onondaga County.

In 2006 and 2007, Case was disciplined for poor

performance on three separate occasions.

In 2011, supervisor Justin Joyce reprimanded Case

several times for continually criticizing the work of

fellow employee Gerald Morse.

In April, the Van Duyn administration decided to

begin the process of terminating Case by ling formal

disciplinary charges against her.

However, before any charges were led, Case ac-

cused Morse of sexual harassment. She submitted a

complaint form alleging that Morse stuck his tongue

out at her, tried to touch her chest and touched her

“butt.” However, she did not include any dates, times,

places or witness names. Case was apparently moti-

vated to le those charges as a “preemptive strike”

because she for some reason had decided that Morse

was going to le harassment charges against her.

Joyce immediately reported Case’s allegations to

the personnel ofce.

On May 2, Morse denied the charges, and the

county claimed it could not further investigate Case’s

complaint because it was too vague.

On May 4, disciplinary charges were led against

Case, and she elected to resign.

She then led a suit against the county and others,

claiming (1) a hostile work environment, (2) retalia-

tion and (3) gender discrimination.

The defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ Case argued that Morse

had created a hostile work environment.

District Judge Gary Sharpe ruled that even if Morse

had done that, the defendants had taken appropriate

remedial action. He explained that Joyce immediately

informed the personnel ofce after he learned of Case’s

complaint, the personnel ofce made diligent efforts

to investigate her vague allegations and the defendants

had physically separated Case and Morse during the

pendency of the investigation by assigning them to dif-

ferent shifts. He then ruled that the defendants could

not be held liable just because Case was unsatised

with the investigation’s results.

On the issue of retaliation, Judge Sharpe acknowl-

edged that Case had made her sexual harassment

complaint approximately two weeks before disciplin-

ary charges were led against her, and agreed that the

suspicious timing raised an inference of retaliation.

But he ruled that the defendants had supplied a le-

gitimate explanation, in that the disciplinary charges

were brought because of her history of poor perfor-

mance and behavior. Since Case had not pointed

to anything else in her claim that the defendants’

reason was pretextual, he ruled that the claim could

not survive.

With respect to the gender-discrimination claim,

the judge said Case had relied solely on the fact that

she was the only female member of the maintenance

department. He then ruled that alone was not enough

to establish that gender discrimination was a motivat-

ing factor in her termination.

[Case v. Onondaga County, et al., U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of New York, No.

5:14-cv-272, 11/16/2016].

Sexual Harassment

Suspended reghter gets her day

in court

In June 2014, Ellicot Fire Protection District vol-

unteer reghter Brittany LaLonde complained to

the re chief and the board of directors that reghter

Michael Henley had subjected her to unwelcome and

offensive sexual advances periodically throughout

2012.

In response, the department allegedly retaliated by

suspending her pending an investigation, and prevent-

ing her from attending an essential course while she

was suspended.

According to LaLonde, she was also shunned by

her colleagues after she was reinstated in August,

and there were delays in returning necessary personal

protective equipment.

LaLonde then joined reghter Jordan Johnston

in ling a suit against the department and others. Her

claims included violations of Title VII.