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 Indeed, the court noted, Anselmo admitted she had not reported her allegations to anyone and had simply withdrawn.
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.
In Webb v. City of Eufaula, a federal court in Oklahoma ruled that a female employee had offered enough facts and evidence to bring her lawsuit for gender discrimination to trial. Candy Webb was the only woman employed as a Police Officer by the City of Eufaula, and was subjected to different standards of training and fitness than other Officers. She was fired by the Police Department and filed a lawsuit.
In Montoya v. Morgan, a female employee of a Florida Sheriff’s Department filed a lawsuit for gender discrimination in violation of federal law. Laura Montoya argued that widespread sexism in the Sheriff’s department created a hostile work environment and that she was wrongfully discharged because of gender bias in the Sheriff’s Department. The Court ruled that she had not proven that she suffered from a hostile work environment. However, based on the facts presented, the Court determined that gender discrimination could have been a part of her employer’s decision to fire her. As a result, that component of her lawsuit was allowed to continue.
In Legg v. Ulster County, a pregnant corrections officer with a high risk pregnancy was denied light duty by her supervisors. The officer ended up suing the county, alleging she was denied light duty because she was pregnant. The Second Circuit agreed, and found the officer was entitled to take her case before a jury.
In Pipes v. City of Falkville, a former Alabama police officer and chaplain alleged he was the victim of sexual harassment after the Police Chief hit his groin area on two occasions. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama disagreed and found there was no evidence this was done because of the officer’s sex. The Court ruled that it was merely horseplay.
In Elmore v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, a former District of Columbia female K-9 unit police officer was found to have a triable retaliation claim after she was injured during a dog training exercise. The City argued that every officer was required to participate in the training but the District Court found that because the officer was injured and her supervisor continued to require the officer to participate, the officer could pursue her lawsuit.
In Kopf v. Bd. Of County Comm’r of Cnty of Canadian, a female deputy sheriff for Canadian County, Oklahoma was discharged after she violated the department’s smoking policy and made false statements on her employment application. The female officer alleged other male deputy sheriffs had committed these same violations but were not terminated. The female officer filed a gender discrimination claim against the County. The County filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the reasons for the officer’s termination were legitimate. An Oklahoma District Court disagreed, and found the officer had presented enough evidence to survive the County’s motion and pursue her claim in front of a jury.
In Cheatham v. DeKalb County, a federal district court granted summary judgment on a female fire medic’s claims that she had been discriminated against because men in her unit did not use the toilet properly and the station captain made a comment that “the only reason why a woman is in the fire service is to cook and do clerical work.” The court ruled that the fire medic had not suffered a materially adverse employment action because she was transferred and her transfer was a lateral one and she could not meet the high burden of establishing she was constructively discharged when she quit and got a better paying job.
In Carothers v. County of Cook, the Seventh Circuit found that a black employee at a juvenile detention center could not move forward with her Title VII race discrimination claim, despite evidence that her supervisor had told a group of employees he would “take them to the woodshed” and made a problematic comment about Malcom X. In her complaint, the employee alleged not only race discrimination, but also disability discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The Court found that because the statements were not made by the ultimate decision maker, the woodshed statement did not hold racial connotations, and the Malcom X comment was made three years prior, the County’s motion for summary judgment was appropriate.
