Judge rules in favor of county in Title VII case

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30885
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020

NOVEMBER 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

11

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Allegedly, none of them corroborated the charges.

The accused supervisor denied the charges, and

suggested they might have resulted from an unrelated

personal dispute with the plaintiff.

Independent witnesses purportedly said the ac-

cused supervisor had actually ordered the plaintiff

to stop a sexually explicit conversation.

During the investigation, a team leader charged

the plaintiff with: (1)viewing pornography in a work

truck and (2)once ashing pornography in his face

while he was driving.

Other witnesses claimed the plaintiff wasn’t a good

worker and had a problem with authority.

Because of the inconsistencies and lack of cor-

roboration, the plaintiff agreed to a polygraph

examination.

He was immediately red after the polygraph pur-

portedly indicated deception.

The plaintiff led a suit claiming retaliation in

violation of Title VII, and the city led a motion for

summary judgment.

The district court judge said an employer wasn’t

liable for disciplining an employee if there was a

good faith belief that the employee had made false

accusations.

The plaintiff argued the city didn’t have a “good

faith belief” because (1) none of the witnesses un-

derwent a polygraph examination and (2)there was a

suspiciously short amount of time between his March

2016 charges and being red.

The judge acknowledged that an obviously inade-

quate investigation might show that the employer was

lying about an employee’s claimed misconduct. How-

ever, she ruled that no reasonable jury could nd fault

with how the city had conducted the investigation.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge also indicated

there were a few independent justications for ring

the plaintiff.

She rst said (1) the plaintiff had admitted to

viewing and displaying pornography at work and

(2)there wasn’t any corroboration that anyone had

forced him to do it.

She next said the employee handbook provided

ample justication to re the plaintiff for the sole

reason that the team leader had charged him with

ashing pornography in the leader’s face while the

leader was driving.

The judge granted a summary judgment in favor of

the city, stating no reasonable juror could believe that

any retaliatory animus was involved in the plaintiff’s

termination.

[James v. City of Florence, et al., U.S. District Court

for the District of South Carolina, No. 4:18-cv-01857,

04/27/20].

Hostile work environment

Judge rules in favor of county

in Title VII case

The plaintiff led a suit after leaving her job as a

Clatsop County Parole and Probation Division staff

assistant in 2018.

One of her claims was that her supervisor had

created a hostile work environment in violation of

Title VII.

In support of that claim, she alleged the supervisor:

(1)subjected her to serious bullying and harassment,

(2)intentionally and maliciously treated her abusive-

ly, (3)spoke to her “demeaningly and dismissively,”

(4) spoke derogatorily about her to co-workers,

(5)falsely accused her of internal policy violations,

(6)said her questions were either stupid or dumb,

(7) reacted to her questions with “eye-rolling and

heavy sighs,” (8)stated she was “high maintenance,”

(9)said she was dressed “too sexy” for the job and

(10)commented that women like her didn’t belong

in law enforcement.

She also alleged that after she led an internal

complaint about the abuse, the human resources

department conrmed the truthfulness of her allega-

tions and forced the accused supervisor to apologize.

According to the plaintiff, the accused supervi-

sor soon returned to her prior bullying and abusive

treatment, and falsely accused her of misreporting

clock-in times.

She also alleged that an investigation of those

charges caused the human resources department to

conclude that the accused supervisor had engaged in

egregious unprofessional, abusive and gender-biased

behavior.

The county led a motion to dismiss.

The district court judge said the plaintiff was re-

quired to allege: (1)the accused supervisor subjected

her to verbal or physical misconduct because of gen-

der bias, (2)the conduct was unwelcome and (3)that

misbehavior was sufciently severe or pervasive to

alter the conditions of her employment and create

an abusive working environment.

She also explained that not all workplace mis-

conduct that could be described as “harassment”

adversely affected a term, condition, or privilege of