Sixth Circuit: Plaintiffs Must Provide Specific Facts to Support Hostile Work Environment or Discrimination Claims
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in KY, MI, OH, and TN |
EFFECTIVE January 30, 2024 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion:
In Ogbonna-McGruider v. Austin Peay State University, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals said a plaintiff failed to state specific facts to support her Title VII claims of hostile work environment and racial discrimination. Here, the plaintiff was an instructor hired to teach classes for the University. Fourteen years later, the University underwent organizational changes and the plaintiff’s department was split into two. She could either select a single department to join without faculty approval or get a joint appointment which required faculty review. Her request for joint appointment was rejected by the dean. After this rejection, the plaintiff attempted to select her own department which was denied. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (Office) that the denials were due to racial discrimination. The Office agreed that the dean’s actions were wrong, but the university took no action. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the University and two supervisors alleging a hostile work environment.
In this first complaint, the plaintiff cited the following incidents as contributing to a hostile work environment: (1) the dean instructing her to move to a basement office; (2) being denied the opportunity to draft a grant proposal for a juvenile detention center in Tennessee after being assured in writing that she could participate; (3) the dean yelling at her in front of a white faculty member; (4) lack of a faculty evaluation for the 2019-2020 academic year and a subsequent follow-up Zoom meeting during which the Chair of the Department denigrated her teaching and research done with minority students and her teaching style overall; (5) low evaluation scores for the next two years; (6) the dean’s and Chair of the Department’s denial of her proposal to create a master’s program despite other professors’ support; (7) being replaced by a white adjunct professor for one of her classes during the fall 2020 semester; (8) being reassigned to teaching public management classes rather than political science classes due to lack of qualifications; (9) denial of an opportunity to teach summer semester; and (10) omission from the University’s College of Behavioral & Health Sciences’ year-end report of presentations and research completed by faculty members. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed two additional EEOC complaints alleging racial discrimination and retaliation.
In reaching its ruling, the court reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court standard for plaintiffs bringing Title VII claims: (1) Did the employer engage in “discrete discriminatory acts” such as “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire”; or (2) Did the employer’s “repeated conduct” create a hostile work environment? The court found, viewing the allegations as a whole, that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege facts that the harassment was severe and pervasive. Also, only some of the alleged facts could be construed to support a hostile work environment claim: (1) the dean instructing her to more to a basement office; (2) the dean yelling at her in front of a white faculty member; (3) lack of a faculty evaluation for the 2019-2020 academic year and a subsequent follow-up Zoom meeting during which the Chair of the Department denigrated her teaching and research done with minority students and her teaching style overall; and (4) being reassigned to teaching public management classes rather than political science classes due to lack of qualifications. These events occurred over a period of two and a half years which was also too infrequent to demonstrate that the workplace was “permeated with” ridicule and insult.
For the plaintiff’s discrimination claim, the court reviewed whether the plaintiff showed: (1) that she was a member of a protected class, (2) an adverse employment action, (3) that she was qualified for her position, and (4) that she was “replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently from similarly situated members of the unprotected class.” Although the court found her discrimination claims to be time barred because she failed to meet the filing deadline, they still considered her claims. The court found the plaintiff failed to state a discrimination claim because she did not allege that any adverse employment action she experienced was motivated by discriminatory animus. The retaliation claim was not considered since the plaintiff provided no argument in support of the claim. This ruling underscores the importance of promptly investigating any claims of harassment or discrimination and documenting the investigation and applicable corrective actions taken.
Action Items
- Develop and distribute a harassment and discrimination prevention policy including reporting procedures.
- Promptly investigate claims of harassment and discrimination including hostile work environment.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2024 ManagEase