I hope everyone had a happy holiday season. Now that we are into the nasty, brutish and short days of January (and especially for our friends suffering through Winter Storm Hercules), I will try to warm things up with a couple of weird-but-instructive sexual harassment cases.
The weather outside is frightful, but the fire's so delightful!
Our first case involves a type of harassment called "quid pro quo," which is thankfully unusual nowadays. "Quid pro quo" is Latin for "this for that." In the context of sexual harassment, it's something like "Sleep with me, or I'll fire you," or "Sleep with me, and I'll see that you get a promotion and a big pay increase." In other words, the request for sexual favors is accompanied by a job-related threat or a promise of reward.
Like I said, this is relatively unusual in our day and age. The type of harassment we usually see (dirty jokes, pictures, sexual advances without a job-related threat or promise, etc.) is called "hostile work environment" harassment. Our second case involves "hostile work environment" harassment, but with a twist.
Congratulations to friend and fellow blogger Eric Meyer, whose excellent The Employer Handbook blog was named the Number 1 labor and employment law blog by the ABA Blawg 100! As many of you know, in addition to having an outstanding blog, Eric instituted and tirelessly runs the monthly Employment Law Blog Carnival, in which I am one of many participants and beneficiaries. Congratulations again, Eric - you most definitely deserve this honor!
Without violating this blog's "no legalese" guarantee, let me just add that it is easier for a plaintiff to get money from an employer if the sexual harassment is of the "quid pro quo" variety.
Ready? Here we go with the cases!
Please note that in both of the following cases, the employers were moving to dismiss the lawsuits before trial. At that stage, the courts are required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and that's the way I have presented the "facts," below. It is possible that juries will view the facts differently and will find in favor of the employers.
Case No. 1: Worst Pick-Up Line Ever
The plaintiff, Eartha McMiller, claimed that her supervisor (who got her the job) hit on her a couple of times and that she rejected his advances both times. Then he turned all stuck up and refused to answer her work-related questions. As is often the case, Ms. McMiller also had some legitimate performance problems, which she admitted, and a few other legitimate alleged issues, which she disputed. She was put on a performance improvement plan.
One day, this supervisor called Ms. McMiller into his office for what she assumed was going to be a meeting to discuss her job performance. Instead, he asked her to come over and tweeze an ingrown hair out of his chin. (I kid you not!) She refused, and he allegedly reminded her that he could get her fired. She continued to refuse, and then he held her and kissed her, and told her that he would make sure her job was protected. She continued to refuse his advances (although she couldn't get away because he had allegedly locked her arms).
Not long afterward, Ms. McMiller was fired for poor performance. Although the supervisor with the chin did not make the decision to fire her, he provided information that resulted in the termination.
Ms. McMiller sued, representing herself, and the employer won summary judgment on all of her claims. Ms. McMiller took the case up on appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit* found partially in her favor, saying that she was entitled to a jury trial on her "quid pro quo" sexual harassment claim.
*The Eighth Circuit hears appeals from federal courts in the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Although the agency said that asking an employee to pluck a whisker out of one's chin was not "sexual" in nature (and who among us could disagree?), the Court said that this was arguably a ruse for getting Ms. McMiller close enough to her boss so that he could make a pass at her, which he allegedly did. And the comments about his power to fire her or to protect her on the job were arguably enough of a job-related "threat" or "promise" to support a quid pro quo claim. And, even if he didn't actually fire her himself, he influenced the decision.
A few lessons from this case:
1) Even a pro se plaintiff (a plaintiff who represents herself) can have a decent case now and then -- at least, enough of a case to get to a jury.
2) The quid pro quo sexual harassment claim is fading away but isn't dead yet.
3) Even if you, as the supervisor, did not make the actual termination decision, you could be liable if you influenced the decision in a significant way.
4) Assuming Ms. McMiller is making the whole thing up and that her supervisor did get her hired in the first place, no good deed goes unpunished.
5) Assuming Ms. McMiller is telling the truth, "Hey, baby, tweeze my chin" has got to be the worst pick-up line ever.
Case No. 2: Why Be Normal?
Our second case is a "hostile work environment" sexual harassment case based on "gender stereotyping." The victim and the alleged perpetrators were all male, and there is no indication of any same-sex attraction.
The plaintiff, Robert Caparanis, wore "weird" clothes (no specifics given), liked to play golf (shocking!!!), took notes on the job (noooooo!), and played like he was pregnant when in his work apron. OK, that last one is a little strange. And he worked in Ford Motor Company's Ohio Assembly plant with a bunch of presumably manly men, who wore "normal" clothes, watched sports on TV while drinking beer the way real men should, never took girly notes, and never, ever pretended to be pregnant women.
Accordingly, the manly men didn't feel an affinity toward Mr. Caparanis, and played obscene sexual pranks and did other mean things to him. Mr. Caparanis complained repeatedly to management, which allegedly did nothing.
Mr. Caparanis was eventually fired for bringing to work a container of his own urine (no explanation of this, either -- presumably he had to "go" while commuting to work?) and dropping it into a container of work gloves.
That sounded to me like a pretty good reason to fire, except that Mr. Caparanis and his witnesses said that the "container of work gloves" was actually a trash can with used-up disposable work gloves and other garbage in it. In other words, if you believe them, dumping the urine there was probably not bad enough for termination since the urine couldn't have contaminated or damaged anything. And the only other employee who had urinated inappropriately (again, no explanation) was written up but not fired.
I realize that this case raises more questions than it answers, which may be why a federal district court judge in the Northern District of Ohio found that Mr. Caparanis's claims of harassment based on gender stereotyping, emotional distress, and retaliation could go to trial.
Lessons from this case:
1) Sexual harassment does not have to be "sexy" or provocative in nature -- it can also consist of pranks, obscenities, and other abusive or bullying behavior, as long as the behavior is based on the person's sex.
2) Unlawful harassment based on "sex" can include harassment because an individual does not fit the stereotype applicable to his or her biological sex. In other words, if you harass a man because he isn't "manly" or a woman because she isn't "womanly," you could be liable for sexual harassment.
3) As an employer, you should always take seriously any complaints of abusive or bullying behavior in the workplace. Don't waste precious time trying to decide whether the bad behavior fits the legal definition of "discriminatory" harassment. If you conduct a thorough, good-faith investigation and take appropriate action, and if it later turns out to be unlawful harassment, you'll be in good shape because you handled it properly and in accordance with the law. If it turns out to be "just" abusive or bullying behavior, you'll still be glad you stopped it because you do not want this kind of thing going on in your workplace. The only way you lose is if you ignore it.
Happy new year, and stay warm!
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010