Judge rules against employee in racial harassment case

• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30766
• Published date: 01 May 2020

MAY 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

11

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

him “handicapped,” “disabled” and “retarded”; and

(8)repeatedly ridiculing his vision problem, his dif-

culty walking and his inability to concentrate.

After the plaintiff was red in December, he led

a suit against the union that made several claims.

One was a hostile work environment in violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The union led a motion for summary judgment.

The district court judge explained that harassment

was actionable when it created a hostile work envi-

ronment so severely permeated with discriminatory

intimidation, ridicule and insult that the terms and

conditions of employment were altered.

He also said the plaintiff was required to show not

only that he subjectively perceived the environment

to be abusive, but also that a reasonable jury would

nd that the working conditions were objectively

hostile and abusive. The judge explained that as part

of his job of deciding whether there were sufcient

allegations to support a hostile work environment

claim, he was required to look to the record as a

whole and assess the totality of the circumstances

after considering a variety of factors that included:

(1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct,

(2)its severity, (3) whether it was physically threat-

ening or humiliating as opposed to a mere offensive

utterance and (4) whether it unreasonably interfered

with the employee’s work performance.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge ruled that no

reasonable juror could nd the chief of staff ’s alleged

comments to create a hostile work environment be-

cause they were not: (1) unprofessional or demeaning,

(2) continual, (3) regularly endured and (4) sufcient

to change the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s

employment.

He explained that even if the chief had made every

alleged comment, a reasonable juror would still have

to nd that they were merely episodic.

The judge dismissed the hostile work environment

claim.

[Murphy v. New York State Public Employees Fed-

eration, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of New York, No. 1:17-cv-628, 09/09/2019].

Title VII

Judge rules against employee

in racial harassment case

The plaintiff was a black woman who worked in

the City of Chicago’s nance department.

In November 2014, the plaintiff’s supervisor issued

a predisciplinary notice form that accused her of:

(1)refusing to meet, (2) speaking loudly and unpro-

fessionally, (3) making personal calls, (4) arriving late

without explanation and (5) excessive socializing.

Even though the plaintiff denied she had violated

any employment policies, she was nevertheless sus-

pended for one day.

In January 2015, the plaintiff’s supervisor issued

a second predisciplinary notice that accused her of

(1)submitting an edit sheet to the wrong manager

and (2) not properly complying with the call-in policy.

In April, the plaintiff received a third prediscipli-

nary notice that accused her of practicing law without

a license.

However, neither the January nor April notices

resulted in any disciplinary action.

In July, a predisciplinary notice was issued to the

plaintiff that accused her of insubordination for the

stated reason that she had refused to accept an as-

signment from a supervisor in another department.

The plaintiff was suspended for three days as a

result of the July notice.

The plaintiff led a suit that made several claims.

One was a hostile work environment in violation of

Title VII.

In addition to alleging the circumstances of the

various notices, the plaintiff also claimed her super-

visor: (1) followed her around the ofce, (2)stared

at her through ofce windows, (3)made false alle-

gations in some of the predisciplinary notices and

(4) once told her “nobody is going to help your

black a**.”

The city led a motion for summary judgment.

The district court judge said it was clear that the

plaintiff and her supervisor weren’t best friends and

she wouldn’t recommend the supervisor for any

award.

However, she also said that because Title VII didn’t

require admirable behavior of either supervisors

or employees, the plaintiff was required to show:

(1)the work environment was both objectively and

subjectively offensive, (2) the harassment was based

on race and (3) the conduct was severe or pervasive.

She also explained that the conduct must have altered

the conditions of employment.

The judge said the city’s motion required her to

analyze the severity of the alleged conduct, its fre-

quency and whether it was physically threatening or

humiliating.

She said the big problem with the claim was that