A good reason to swear off gossiping at work.
In a very interesting decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for my Fourth Circuit, a three-judge panel recently held that false rumors that a successful woman "slept her way to the top" can create a hostile work environment under Title VII.
I agree.
We usually think of sexual harassment as "sexy" behavior -- dirty jokes, unwanted kisses or gropes, invitations to spend 90 minutes at the Motel 6 -- but it can also include behavior that isn't "sexy" at all.
For example, let's say we have an old-fashioned supervisor who believes women should stay home and look after their husbands, and he can't resist sharing his views with his female employees. All the freakin' time. At some point, those comments could become "severe or pervasive," and the female subordinates might have a valid claim of sexual harassment.
This isn't sexy behavior, but it is offensive based on sex. (Of course, comments like this could also be Exhibit A in a sex discrimination suit if one of the women is denied a promotion or terminated.)
That general idea applied in the case of Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. Evangeline Parker got six promotions in less than two years, and -- according to her lawsuit -- one of her male peers who was hired around the same time (and who was now her subordinate), became envious. He allegedly started a false rumor that Ms. Parker got "the fast track" because she was sleeping with a manager.
Her lawsuit claimed that even the top guy at the facility believed the rumor and helped to spread it. As a result, her reputation was ruined, she was mistreated, and she was eventually fired.
I feel like there may be another side to this story, but if there is, we'll have to wait to hear it because the court was ruling on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A short and relatively painless lesson in civil pro for our non-lawyer readers
When a defendant files a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss -- usually in the very early stages of the lawsuit -- the court is required to assume that just about everything alleged in the lawsuit is true. The court can't dismiss the suit unless the allegations -- assuming they are true -- do not state a claim under the law.
For example, let's say I file a lawsuit against my former employer for discrimination. I claim that I was fired for having a Midwestern accent. My ex-employer should file a motion to dismiss immediately, and the court should grant it. Because even if I was fired for having a Midwestern accent, "Midwestern discrimination" is not illegal.
On the other hand, let's say I file a lawsuit against my employer claiming I was fired for being a woman who is *ahem!* "40 or older." If my employer filed a motion to dismiss that, the motion would usually be denied because sex and age discrimination are illegal. I'll still have to prove that is what happened, but the court will let me have my chance.
I hope this illustrates why I'm generally not a fan of the 12(b)(6) motion. Sometimes it's the right thing to do, but in my experience, plaintiffs usually manage to at least claim that something illegal happened. If they do, the motion is often an unnecessary expense for the employer and a waste of time.
In most cases I'd prefer to provide our side of the story, develop the evidence in our defense, and then file what is called a motion for summary judgment after all the evidence is in. At that stage, the court still has to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (or non-moving party), but at least evidence can be considered. And, often, the evidence favors the employer.
Here's how summary judgment could work. Going back to my hypothetical age-and-sex discrimination lawsuit, let's say the court refuses to dismiss the lawsuit in the early stages, so the lawsuit goes forward, and at some point the employer takes my deposition. Under the withering cross-examination of the employer's attorney, I blurt out that I believe I was fired because my Southern co-workers couldn't stand my Midwestern accent. ("Honey, that voice is like gel manicured fingernails on a blackboard! Bless her heart!")
And my co-workers and the person who fired me are all female and over 40, just like me.
Then the attorney asks me to explain why I believe my age and sex played a role in my termination, and I twang under oath, "Well, 'cause I'm over 40 and female. Duh."
HINT: That isn't enough.
Even though my lawsuit alleged illegal conduct, the evidence did not support my allegations. And the employer should be able to file a motion for summary judgment and get the lawsuit thrown out before it has to go through the expense and risk of a jury trial.
I'm sorry -- were we talking about something?
Back to our case. Based on the very "plaintiff-friendly" standard that applies to a motion to dismiss, you can now see why the Fourth Circuit made this preliminary ruling in favor of Ms. Parker. (And she had a lot of folks on her side, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the League of Women Voters of the United States, Legal Momentum, the People for the American Way Foundation, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Urban League, among a host of others.)
In addition, the court cited decisions from the Third and Seventh circuits, both of which have also ruled that false "sleeping-to-the-top" rumors about women could be sexual harassment.
So now the lawsuit will proceed. At this point, we don't know whether Ms. Parker's story is true. The evidence may eventually show that she really was sleeping her way to the top, or at least having an affair with the manager, or maybe just telling everybody in the workplace that she was. Hence the gossip. Or it may show that everything Ms. Parker has alleged is true. We'll eventually find out if the parties don't settle.
Someone may ask, Well, what if the manager had been a female, and it was a man who rose unusually quickly through the ranks? The court's discussion was very focused on the impact of "slut" rumors about women. But my best guess is that if there was false workplace gossip that a "fast track" guy was his female manager's "boy toy," "gigolo," or whatever, and if the impact on his work life was roughly equivalent to that alleged by Ms. Parker, then he would also be able to assert a sexual harassment claim.
In case you needed another reason to avoid workplace gossip, here you have it.
Image Credits: Still images from flickr, Creative Commons license. Old men gossiping by Hamed Parham, hipsters gossiping by Staffan Cederborg, younger men gossiping by Patricia dos Santos Paton.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010