Can You Fire an Employee Who Has Just Complained About Sexual Harassment?

Latrece Lockett worked at the Clarion Hotel in Tampa, Florida from August 2005 until August 2006. Lockett first met Eric Watson when he began working at the hotel cafe with her.  Watson acted politely and cordially during this time, and they had a friendly relationship.  After Lockett transferred to the reservations department in April 2006, Watson began making sexual comments to her when she visited the cafe during her breaks. For instance, Watson would talk about sexual positions, stick out his tongue at her and make comments so lewd that they cannot be printed in this Newsletter.<a href="http://biznik.com/articles/#_ftn1">[1]</a>  As a result, Lockett stopped going to the cafe for about three weeks. When she returned to the cafe, Watson wanted to hug her but she refused.  Lockett testified that on another occasion Watson touched her bottom. Lockett initially complained to Flavian Gomez, the cafe manager.  Gomez told Lockett that he spoke to Watson but Watson's behavior continued.  Sometime in August 2006, Lockett reported Watson to her supervisor's manager, Debbie Mangual.  Mangual informed Gomez of Lockett's complaints and Gomez indicated he would speak with Watson. Several weeks later, Lockett told Mangual that Watson was still acting inappropriately. Mangual immediately notified Jacqueline Gregory in Human Resources.  That same day, Gregory met with Lockett to discuss Watson's behavior. Afterwards, a meeting occurred involving Gregory, Watson, Mangual and Lockett.  According to Lockett, Watson "admitted to everything" and also attacked her character, calling her a "ho" and a "bitch."  At one point, Lockett said Watson "jumped in my face and acted like he was going to hit me." Lockett threatened Watson with, "I have a boyfriend for you." Watson then returned to the front desk and made derogatory comments about Lockett as well as divulged personal information about her sex life.  After Mangual informed Watson's supervisor, Gomez, about Watson's statements at the meeting and the front desk, Gomez terminated Watson. Mangual also told Lockett that she was terminating her for threatening Watson. Lockett sued Clarion for hostile work environment and retaliation.  She contended that Watson's harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment because it occurred almost daily for several months and was demeaning, offensive and humiliating.  Lockett further argued that Clarion’s responses to her reports of sexual harassment were ineffective. An employer violates Title VII when it creates "a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of work."  To establish sexual harassment, Lockett had to show that she had been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment and that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. Title VII does not, however, serve as a "general civility code." "[S]imple teasing . . . offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)" do not constitute a hostile work environment.  Instead, a hostile work environment exists only "'[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.'" Clarion has a written policy forbidding sexual harassment in the workplace, which instructs employees to notify their supervisor promptly after any incident of sexual harassment.  In addition, Clarion’s policy prohibits "threats of violence" and "disorderly conduct and obscene and/or abusive language."  Similarly, an employee may be discharged for "offensive or threatening conduct or language" towards fellow employees.  Lockett admitted that she read and understood these policies before signing them. Lockett also admitted that she and Watson had a friendly relationship.  Lockett's direct supervisor, Geneva Williams, testified that Lockett never complained to her about Watson until the day she was fired.  Furthermore, during the alleged period of harassment, Lockett only stopped using the cafe for three weeks and she never sought medical treatment or counseling because of Watson's behavior. The federal court threw out her hostile work environment claim because the only subjective evidence was her avoidance of the cafe for three weeks, after which she resumed her visits. From an objective standpoint, the Court found that Watson's comments, although offensive, were not severe, physically threatening, or humiliating. Additionally, the Court noted that Watson's conduct in the cafe never interfered with Lockett's job performance in the reservations area.  The only change in Lockett's working conditions stemmed from her decision not to eat at the cafe for three weeks. When viewed in context, this did not constitute unreasonable interference with Lockett's job performance. Finally, the Court concluded that Clarion appropriately and promptly responded to Lockett's complaint.  It quoted another court, which held "[W]here the substantive measures taken by the employer are sufficient to address the harassing behavior, complaints about the process under which those measures are adopted ring hollow." With respect to her claim of retaliation, Lockett argued that Mangual's true reason for firing her was that Mangual's mishandling of her harassment claims made Mangual look like a poor manager.  Under Title VII, an employer may not retaliate against an employee for complaining about sexual harassment.  And, even though Lockett did not prevail on her underlying discrimination claim, she still could have prevailed at trial by showing that Clarion retaliated against her for complaining about Watson's putative sexual harassment. Clarion responded that it fired Lockett for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: she violated the hotel’s policy banning co-worker threats when she told Watson, "I have a boyfriend for you."  Lockett argued that this statement was not intended as a threat but merely to let Watson know that "if you want to hit somebody, you could hit my boyfriend."  However, what counted was not what Lockett believed about her stated intent but what the decision maker at Clarion believed.  The uncontroverted evidence was that Mangual believed Lockett had threatened Watson and fired her because of that threat. The Court threw out her retaliation claim as well.  The undisputed evidence showed that Clarion legitimately terminated Lockett based on its belief that she had threatened Watson. Further, the Court found no evidence showing that Clarion terminated her in retaliation for complaining about Watson.   <hr /> l 2009-10-12T21:59:49Z