US District Court Rules Regular Attendance, Cooperation to be Necessary Qualifications for Indianapolis Fire Department Firefighters, Rejects Former Employee’s Disability Suit

By Cynthia McNabb and Kim Lowe

In Neal v. Indianapolis Fire Department, a District Court judge ruled that there was no merit to a claim by a former employee that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability when he was terminated for poor attendance.

[Read more…]

Prospective Firefighter Unable to Overcome Obstacles in Disability Suit

By Jim Cline and Mark Anderson

In Frost v. City of Philadelphia, a Philadelphia court denied a trial for Plaintiff Frost’s claims that the City discriminated against him by refusing to admit him to the Fire Academy and then firing him because of his disability.

[Read more…]

Tennessee Court Upholds Police Officer’s First Amendment’s Free Speech Rights

By Jim Cline and Mark Anderson

In Bagby v. City of Morristown, a Tennessee court ordered a trial for Officer Bagby’s claim that the City of Morristown Police Department violated his freedom of speech by firing him in retaliation for comments he made at a City Council meeting.

[Read more…]

Illinois Court Holds Inconsistent Discipline Standards can be a Basis for Race Discrimination Lawsuit

By Mark Anderson and Katrina Thornton

In Levy v. Wilkie, an Illinois court of appeals ordered a trial of an African American police officer’s race discrimination lawsuit.  Levy worked as a police officer at the Hines VA Hospital.   The court found that inconsistent discipline practices raised a jury question on whether Levy had been subject to racial discrimination.

[Read more…]

Federal Court in Illinois Throws Out Black Probation Officer’s Race Discrimination and Union Retaliation Claim Based on Denial of His Request for a Schedule Change

By Mark Anderson and Katrina Thornton

In Smith v. Cook County, an Illinois court dismissed an African American probation officer’s lawsuit claiming the County denied his request for an adjusted schedule because of his race and active participation in his labor union. The court dismissed Officer Jason Smith’s lawsuit,  finding that neither Smith’s race nor his union activity was the basis for the employer’s denial of his request to adjust his schedule.

[Read more…]

Philadelphia Police Tow Trucker Driver’s Prayers Answered as Court Holds Department May Have Discriminated Against Him

By Mark Anderson and Katrina Thornton

In Bonilla v. City of Philadelphia, a Philadelphia court denied the City of Philadelphia’s request to throw out  a Christian tow truck driver’s lawsuit claiming that he had been discriminated against because of his faith. The court held the Department may have created an offensive work environment based on the driver’s religious beliefs.

[Read more…]

Philadelphia cop can’t claim that management retaliated by failing to stop coworkers from creating a hostile work environment

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.  

[Read more…]

Indiana Police Officer Fails to Provide Evidence of Discriminatory Motive for His Discipline

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Cobsy v. City of Indianapolis, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit of a police officer who claimed that his repeated discipline was motivated by racial bias in the Indianapolis Police Department. Because Officer Cosby did not present evidence that his multiple suspensions were related to his race, he could not state a claim for racial discrimination.

[Read more…]

Federal Court Rules That Alabama Police Officer Can Bring Case for Retaliatory Transfer to Night Shift

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Jones v. City of Birmingham, a federal court ruled that an Alabama Police Officer had alleged sufficient facts to show he may have been transferred as retaliation for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court dismissed Edwin Jones’ claim for racial discrimination, but it did find that Jones had shown a potential retaliation for his filing a complaint with the EEOC. As a result, the Court determined that his case should be heard by a jury. [Read more…]

Federal Court of Appeals Rules That Maine Corrections Nurse Exposed to Sexual Jokes, Degrading Comments and Spanking had “Substantial Evidence” of Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment

By:  Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the decision of a lower court and determined that Tara Roy had presented sufficient evidence that she faced gender discrimination and hostility to bring her case for employment discrimination before a jury. Roy’s case involved many defendants, including the private company that employed her (Correct Care), the Maine Department of Corrections, and the individual supervisors who allegedly retaliated against her for complaining about sexual harassment.

Tara Roy was employed by a private company that provided medical services in Maine correctional facilities. In 2012, a Corrections Officer made sexual jokes and degrading comments about women to Roy. He also bent her over a chair and spanked her. Roy complained about the behavior, and the Officer was reassigned. A year later, a different Corrections Officer made other comments to Roy, like “a woman’s job is to be at home.” Roy reported these comments as well, but neither the company nor the department of Corrections took any action. Later, a third Corrections Officer responded to a work-related request from Roy by saying she should “stop being a bitch.” Roy and the third Corrections Officer had a romantic relationship that had ended, but he continued sending her explicit photos of himself. Roy was also repeatedly pressured by several other male Officers to give them confidential information about inmates that she was not allowed to give. Roy complained about these incidents to her superiors, but the investigations that occurred did not result in any discipline or corrective action. Roy also complained that at one point, despite her requests, Corrections Officers had not guarded prisoners in the infirmary. Roy claimed in an incident report that the Officers had been absent for 15 minutes. Video footage indicated that officers were only absent for two minutes. On the basis of this inconsistency, Roy’s security clearance was revoked and she was fired.

Roy argued that this course of events violated her rights in several ways. First, she argued that the repeated abuse she suffered at the hands of male Corrections Officers made her work environment hostile. She argued that this was specifically related to the fact that she was a woman. She further argued that her employer and the jail were both liable because they knew what was going on but did nothing to stop it. Second, Roy argued that her termination was retaliation for her efforts to bring this discrimination and abuse to light. She argued that the employer’s given reason—her misleading statement about exactly how long officers were not supervising the infirmary—was only a pretext to fire her. The real reason, she argued, was that she alleged sexual harassment by other members of the jail’s staff.

Correct Care Solutions argued that that Roy had not proven any of the critical elements of her lawsuit. It argued that, to the extent anyone harassed Roy, it was not obviously because of her identity as a woman. Correct Care also argued that even assuming Roy had been harassed, these were isolated incidents, and not the pattern of sexual harassment that is required to establish a hostile work environment. Second, Correct Care argued that Roy had not proven that her alleged dishonesty was not a valid independent reason for firing her. Finally, Correct Care argued that since the hostile work environment and the “retaliation” also involved employees of the jail, it was impossible for them to correct the behavior that Roy was describing.

The federal court did not determine that Roy had proven her case—but it did issue a forceful ruling that she had alleged enough facts to bring her case before a jury.  The Court found that:

A jury could find on one of several theories that officers put Roy at risk, treated her rudely, ignored her, demeaned her, and filed reports complaining about her not only because of her whistleblowing but also because of her sex. […] Responding disrespectfully or dismissively to women’s requests, complaining about women’s performance, and ignoring or ostracizing women are paradigmatic ways to communicate to women that they are less worthy than or less welcome than men in a workplace.

The Court also explained that the facts on the record showed that retaliation may have been the reason she was fired. As the Court explained,

If CCS could have transferred Roy to one of its other facilities in Maine, as Roy says, then a jury could find that retaliatory animus was a but-for cause of CCS’s decision to fire her rather than transfer her. Significantly, CCS has not produced evidence that a transfer was impossible.

Finally, the court explained that the somewhat complex relationship between the jail and Correct Care Solutions did not mean that Roy could not bring a lawsuit against both of them:

A third party’s retaliatory or discriminatory animus can cause an employer’s adverse action where, as a jury might find here, the employer knew that animus motivated the third-party’s actions or demands and simply accepted those actions or demands.

For these reasons, the Federal Court of Appeals determined that Roy’s case should go before a jury to weigh the evidence of discrimination, hostility, and retaliation that she had presented.

This case is an example of the types of conduct which can constitute a hostile work environment based on sex. The standard that courts apply is that the bad conduct must be “severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.” The bad conduct must also be either done or tolerated by management. In this case the repeated sexualized jokes and comments by Roy’s co-workers which management knew about and did not correct were enough to allow a jury to decide that they altered the working conditions to create hostile work environment.   

The case also stands for the propositions that employers cannot hide behind third party contractors to avoid liability. If the employer knew or should have known about the third party’s bad conduct and did not correct it, the employer may be found liable if they had the means to correct the behavior and failed to do so.

 

**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Racial Discrimination and Gender Discrimination **