By Mark Anderson and Beth Touschner
In Anselmo v. City of Philadelphia, a city police officer brought a lawsuit against her employer alleging she was retaliated against by coworkers after she reported gender discrimination. Specifically, Anselmo claimed, after she reported discrimination she was ostracized, lost friends at work, was not invited to social gatherings, coworkers would not sit near her, she was excluded when lunch was ordered, and one of her coworkers called her a rat. The court rejected her retaliation claim because Anselmo failed to show that the employer knew of the harassment and failed to stop it. Indeed, the court noted, Anselmo admitted she had not reported her allegations to anyone and had simply withdrawn.
Anselmo also claimed that the employer failed to accommodate her disability, multiple sclerosis. The court rejected this claim because the employer did not know she had a disability at the time of one alleged failure on its part. At the time of a second alleged failure on the part of management – when management supposedly failed to allow Anselmo time off work to go to a doctor appointment — she had failed to tell the employer that her request for time off was related to her MS or any other disability. Therefore, the court concluded, it was Anselmo who had failed to engage in the interactive process, not the employer.
Officer Anselmo worked in the Special Victims Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department. She brought an internal complaint against a supervisor alleging that he treated male officers more favorably than female officers. Thereafter, her coworkers ignored her, failed to include her in social events, indirectly referred to her as a “rat,” and failed to help her investigate cases. In response, Officer Anselmo withdrew from her coworkers and frequently worked with Air Buds on. She did not complain about the ostracism to management. She attempted to transfer to another unit and claimed that her manager, who was aware of her report of gender discrimination, delayed the paperwork necessary for her transfer.
Officer Anselmo began to experience back problems, muscle weakness, tingling in her feet, and numbness in her legs, which was later diagnosed as Multiple Sclerosis. A lieutenant with the department suggested she keep her diagnosis to herself for fear of being treated differently by management. Officer Anselmo then requested time off work for medical appointments, but did not reveal her diagnosis or discuss a need for accommodation with management.
This case highlights the fact that employers can be liable for harassment by coworkers only if the employer “knew or should have known about the [co-worker] harassment” but failed to take action to stop it. To avoid this possibility, an employee who is being harassed should promptly report the harassment to management.
This case also illustrates the duty of employees with disabilities to engage in the interactive process with management to determine what accommodations are needed. Management cannot be held to have a duty to undertake what otherwise might be mandated “reasonable accommodations” when it is not on notice for the need for such accommodations.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Gender Discrimination and Disability Discrimination.**
