FELICIA STROTHERS v. CITY OF LAUREL, MARYLAND
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory, July 6, 2018,
Title VII – Employment Discrimination – Retaliatory Discharge – An employee fired the day after filing a memo complaining of employment discrimination has shown enough evidence of retaliation to avoid dismissal of the case
Facts:
In August of 2013, Felicia Strothers interviewed for an administrative assistant position with the City of Laurel. Strothers was interviewed by four individuals, including Carreen Koubek. All but Koubek wanted to hire Strothers. According to the lawsuit, Koubek “wanted someone of a different race.”
Strothers was hired and worked under Koubek. Koubek began “harassing” Strothers the first day of the job. In her lawsuit, Strothers claimed that: Koubek frequently made negative comments about her in front of others, made her report every time she left her desk to go to the bathroom and report when she returned, made negative comments about Strothers’ lack of teamwork because Strothers did not include her when scheduling a massage appointment, and eventually gave Strothers a negative performance evaluation.
Strothers was the only black employee working for Koubek and the only other employee that Koubek had ever had an issue with was also black. Additionally, “Strothers also heard from former City employees who explicitly warned her about Koubek’s history of harassing black employees.”
Strothers wrote a memo regarding the “harassment” and “hostile work environment” and sent it to Koubek’s boss. In an e-mail exchange with him, Strothers then asked Koubek’s boss to “please have the grievance forms for me to complete upon coming in tomorrow morning.”
Strothers was fired the next day. The stated reason was tardiness.
Strothers filed suit against the City for retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A district court judge dismissed the case on the grounds that Strothers failed to prove that she was fired because of her complaint.
Strothers appealed, arguing that she was entitled to prove her case at trial.
Held: The Fourth Circuit agreed. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Strothers, the Court held that the case should not have been dismissed.
Equal Employment – Discrimination – Title VII forbids any employment practice that discriminates against an employee (or prospective employee) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Equal Employment – Retaliation – Title VII also makes it illegal to retaliate against an employee for opposing discrimination that she reasonably believes is due to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Title VII – Retaliation – Retaliation is illegal even if it does not directly relate to employment; it can even include retaliatory action taken outside of the workplace
Title VII – Retaliation – In order for something to count as “retaliation,” it has to be “materially” adverse (enough to keep someone from complaining in the future)
Title VII – Retaliation – It is illegal to retaliate against an employee for filing a complaint even if the employee was incorrect about being discriminated against. An employee is protected against retaliation for making a complaint as long as it was objectively reasonable for the employee to believe that she was being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII – Retaliation – To prove retaliation, an employee can either show:
1) Direct evidence of discrimination
OR
2) Show that:
– She was engaged in a protected activity (filing a complaint, for example)
– the employer acted against her
– and there is reason to believe that it was her protected activity that caused the action against her
Title VII – Retaliation – There is generally reason to believe that action was taken against an employee because of protected activity if:
– the employer knew or should have known that the employee was engaging in protected activity
– and action was taken against the employee soon after becoming aware of the protected activity
From the Case: Because Strothers’ termination the day after stating her intent to file a complaint “is well-within what this Court has found to be a causally significant window of time, we conclude that Strothers has met her burden of showing causation.”
Title VII – Protected Activity – An employee is protected from retaliation for both informal complaints as well as formal complaints related to discrimination as long as it is reasonable for the employee to believe that she is being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Title VII – Hostile Work Environment – An employee may take action against an employer for creation of a hostile work environment. To do this, the employee has to show:
– That there was “unwelcome conduct”
– This conduct was based on the defendant’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
– The conduct was serious or pervasive enough to create an abusive work environment or change her conditions of employment
– The employer is responsible
From the Case (Unwelcome Conduct): In the light most favorable to Strothers, she “was subjected to numerous types of conduct that could not have been welcomed. When Koubek accused Strothers of violating the dress code, Koubek circled Strothers, lunged at her, and grabbed her pants without seeking permission. Further, Koubek tracked Strothers’ every movement in the office, requiring Strothers to obtain permission even to relieve herself in the restroom… Koubek then compiled these incidents into negative evaluations and placed them in Strothers’ personnel folder, knowing that she was a probationary employee. It is hard to imagine a reasonable worker who would not find unwelcome Koubek’s constant surveillance, badgering, and criticism.” Moreover, “Strothers repeatedly informed Director Piringer, Koubek, and others of her objections. Even Koubek’s own notes record several instances in which Strothers verbally objected directly to Koubek herself and to Piringer. Strothers also put her objections in writing and went as far as to complain to a member of the City Council.”
From the Case (Protected Class): “Taken together, Strothers knew three things that suggested she was the target of racial discrimination, rather than a mere ‘workplace squabble.’ First, former employees revealed a history and pattern of racial discrimination. Second, she was singled out for disparate treatment from the moment she arrived on the job for reasons unrelated to her job performance. Third, the director of her department cited Strothers’ race when she complained about the disparate treatment and harassment.”
Title VII – Hostile Work Environment- Severity – In order for there to be a hostile work environment, someone must find the environment hostile (subjective) and that belief must be reasonable (objective).
Title VII – Hostile Work Environment- Severity – In deciding whether a reasonable person would find an environment hostile or abusive, courts will consider:
– How often the conduct occurs
– Its severity (offensive comments? physical threats? direct harm?)
– and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance
From the Case (Severity): “A reasonable jury could also find that Koubek’s actions objectively interfered with Strothers’ ability to do her job. Heightened scrutiny, unfair evaluations, and arbitrary dress codes are likely to make a job more difficult and trigger responses from workers who feel compelled to protest their treatment, which may further interfere with their work… a reasonable jury could easily conclude that the totality of Koubek’s actions would discourage a reasonable employee from working for the City and that Strothers reasonably believed that Koubek’s actions were so frequent and severe as to be abusive.”
Title VII – Hostile Work Environment- Employer responsibility – A hostile work environment can be the result of co-workers or supervisors. In any case, an employer that “knew or should have known” about the hostile work environment must “take effective action to stop it.”
Title VII – Hostile Work Environment- Employer responsibility – If a supervisor (someone who can take employment action such as firing or reassignment) is the one creating the hostile work environment, then the supervisor’s discriminatory action is considered the employer’s action.
From the Case: Because Koubek participated in the hiring process, made claims related to disciplinary action against Strothers, exercised control over Strothers’ work functions, controlled Strothers’ use of leave, and Strothers’ status as a probationary employee made her employment dependent on Koubek’s performance review, “a reasonable jury could find that Strothers had reason to think that Koubek’s actions were imputable to the City, either because Koubek was a supervisor or because the City was negligent in preventing the harassment.”