Long time gap between events sinks discrimination claim

• Date: 01 February 2021
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30941

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR FEBRUARY 2021

10 © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC • 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.

Constructive discharge

Judge rules against former employee

over discharge

The plaintiff began working as a nancial analyst

for the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District in 2016,

and reported directly to the chief nancial ofcer.

She complained to the executive director in 2017

that the CFO had sent her offensive emails and

ridiculed her in staff meetings. The plaintiff told

the executive director she thought the misconduct

resulted from gender discrimination and the CFO

being a bully.

The executive director assigned the head of human

resources to investigate the plaintiff’s complaints.

After nishing his inquiries, the human resources

director concluded that the CFO acted unprofes-

sionally by (1) sending emails to the plaintiff that

contained unnecessary remarks and (2) unnecessarily

circulating them to other employees.

After her complaints to the executive director, the

plaintiff was allegedly (1) unfairly written up for a

“failure of performance” and (2) denied a promised

raise. In addition, the CFO purportedly (1) barred

her from a grant meeting, (2) excluded her from some

staff meetings, (3) micromanaged her work, (4) glared

at her, and (5) paced the sidewalk when she arrived

at and left from work.

The plaintiff took off work because of anxiety and

depression. However, she was red for the stated reason

of job abandonment when she didn’t return to the job.

The plaintiff led a suit against the district.

One of her contentions was that she had been

constructively discharged.

In addition to alleging the difculties she had ex-

perienced at work, the plaintiff also alleged she was

(1) displeased with the methods the HR department

had used in its investigation of her complaints against

the CFO and (2) often so anxious and upset at work

that she became ill.

The defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment.

The district court judge said (1) establishing a con-

structive discharge claim was very difcult and (2) the

plaintiff was required to show extreme misconduct

that negatively changed the terms and conditions of

her employment.

She explained that a constructive discharge ex-

isted only when a discriminatory employer imposed

working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable

person in the plaintiff’s position would have been

compelled to resign. She also said a person’s working

environment didn’t become objectively intolerable

simply because it had become less attractive.

The judge also cautioned that (1) simple teasing,

offhand comments, and isolated incidents—unless

they were extremely serious—wouldn’t be sufcient;

and (2) constructive discharge couldn’t be established

by depicting the ordinary tribulations of the work-

place, such as the sporadic use of abusive language.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge acknowledged

that the plaintiff sincerely considered all of the

alleged misconduct to be hurtful and anxiety-pro-

ducing. However, she ruled that it wasn’t frequent or

offensive enough to cause a constructive discharge.

The judge granted a summary judgment in favor

of the defendant, ruling the workplace alleged by

the plaintiff wasn’t so “objectively intolerable” that

a reasonable person would resign.

[Alvarez v. Lakeland Area Mass Transit District,

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,

No. 8:19-cv-1044, 06/25/2020]

Gender discrimination

Long time gap between events sinks

discrimination claim

The plaintiff worked for the Indiana Department

of Transportation. One of her duties was to present

the director with yearly updates she was required to

solicit from each department.

In an early February 2018 meeting about the need

for that update, one departmental secretary asked why

the plaintiff was “blowing up” at her. The plaintiff

allegedly responded, “Does it sound like I’m blowing

up?”

After reporting to the director the next day about

having “some words” with the secretary, he chose to

issue a written reprimand to the plaintiff.

On Feb. 16, a different employee allegedly told the

plaintiff she wasn’t going to follow IDOT company

policy about handling keys. The plaintiff then sent