By Mitchel Wilson
In Mocic v. Sumner County Emergency Medical Service, 117 FEP Cases 1005 (M.D. Tenn. 2013), a Federal District Court dismissed two of a discharged Tennessee paramedic’s claims, but allowed her claims for sexual harassment and retaliation to proceed to trial. Both of her Title VII claims fail because there wasn’t any actual harm suffered just the appearance of harm. Leading up to her discharge her employer and supervisor taunted her daily, would kick her chair, and tease her about her poorly fitting uniform as her pregnancy progressed. Ultimately she filed a complaint with the EEOC and was fired soon after; her employer asserts that she was discharged because of her inability to lift overweight patients after a shoulder injury.
The employee has alleged enough facts to survive motions to dismiss and bring her claim of sex/gender discrimination resulting from a hostile work environment to trial. The court recites the facts alleged and then analogizes them to a case where the employee succeeded in her claim.
[The Employee] has shown evidence she was the target of repeated physical and daily verbal harassment by a department supervisor, Poss, as well as patently hostile comments by both Poss and the department’s operations manager, Moore. Randolph, 453 F.3d at 734 (plaintiff “easily satisfied her burden to produce evidence” of a hostile work environment by alleging daily verbal harassment and several incidents of physical activity). These statements were not coded or sugar-coated, but directly chastised Mocic for her decision to carry out her pregnancy while working.
Mocic cannot show that her employer’s refusal to order her a new uniform and subsequent threats to write her up for not tucking in her shirt rises to an adverse employment action under Title VII. Her claim fails because her boss never actually followed through with his threats and never did anything that would give her a cause of action, such as impacting her income or assignments.
The employee’s claim for discrimination under Title VII for disparate treatment in not receiving light duty when she had a shoulder injury fails. Her claim fails because even though male employees had light duty in the past, the employer is only required to assign light duty when it is available and it wasn’t at the time of her request.
The employee has established the basic case of employer retaliation for filing a discrimination claim with the EEOC and the burden to rebut shifts to her employer. She engaged in protected activity by filing the complaint, her employer knew about the complaint, her employer fired her afterward, and she was fired within months of filing the complaint while the employer cited an unpersuasive (more on this) reason to discharge her.
Although the employer presents a valid argument, that Mocic was discharged because she couldn’t perform an essential function of the position, the court found that this reason is unpersuasive because it was very lightly based in fact and there was no investigation of the underlying claim made by the supervisor. The employer contends that she was fired because she required lift assistance of certain patients. However, the decision was based on the report of only one supervisor and it appears to be common practice of all employees to request lift assistance for obese patients.
The apparent extent of [the Manager] inaction is striking. It appears he did not thoroughly interview [the Superviseor] at the time of the initial report or after … and he testified that he did not even ask [the Supervisor] why [the Employee] said she would be unable to lift patients properly. He nonetheless typed a letter or memorandum for [the Supervisor] to sign regarding the incident. Nor did [the Manager] provide [the Employee] with an opportunity to explain herself before making his decision.
