There is more bad news for employers in a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that reversed, in part, a district court’s dismissal of one particular hostile work environment claim.
In Yazdian v Conmed Endoscopic Technologies, Inc., the employee complained to his direct supervisor that there was a “hostile work environment” and that “he would respond with counsel…and charges.”
The appellate court found that these statements, without mention of any protected status, discrimination, or civil rights laws, were sufficient to put the employer on notice that the employee was complaining about unlawful discrimination. Once on notice, the employer’s duty to investigate and take prompt and appropriate action is triggered.
So, it is a good practice to always investigate whenever an employee complains about a “hostile work environment.” And, yes, employees sprinkle those terms around like salt on popcorn, but failure to investigate will result in the employer losing a major affirmative defense.
The news got even worse for the employer in Yazdian. The appellate court also found that the supervisor provided direct evidence of a retaliatory motive by pointing to the employee’s complaint of a hostile work environment as evidence of the employee’s unwillingness to accept constructive criticism. The court noted that summary dismissal is not proper when the employer cites the employee’s “tone of voice or manner of speaking” (or attitude) as the cause of termination, especially in the context of a Title VII claim of retaliation.
The takeaway here… it is always wise to consult with employment counsel prior to making termination decisions and preparing discharge documents.
Comments
Add a comment
Topics
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Agreement
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Wage & Hour
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- At Will Employment
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Act
- No Tax on Overtime
- Overtime
- Payroll
- COVID-19
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Coronavirus
- National Labor Relations Board
- Arbitration
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Regulatory Law
- Civil Rights
- Title VII
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Contract Employees
- OSHA Issues
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Tax Law
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Earned Sick Time
- Workplace Harassment
- Transgender Issues
- Contracts
- Unemployment Benefits
- Federal Trade Commission
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Public Education
- Cannabis
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Federal Policy Favors Arbitration but Poor Drafting Derails Enforcement
- An Employers Guide to New OBBBA Overtime Reporting Requirements
- Federal Court Rules State Discrimination Claims Subject to Mandatory Arbitration
- Are Boilerplate Terms in Employment Applications Enforceable?
- Is Your Business Ready for Pay Transparency Laws?
- Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split in Reverse Discrimination Cases
- Michigan Legislature Avoids Chaos by Amending Earned Sick Time Act Just Prior to Deadline
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling




