Yesterday, a divided Sixth Circuit reversed
summary judgment in favor of an employer on a retaliatory discharge claim
brought under Title VII by a former executive who was fired for not being a “good
fit” shortly after “venting” to the Vice
President of Human Resources on an overseas trip about repeated and inappropriate
derogatory racial comments about other individuals made by another executive. Trujillo v.
Henniges Automotive Sealing Systems North America, Inc., No. 11-1148 (6th
Cir. 10-17-12). The Court did not find
the plaintiff’s vague expressions of discomfort to the offending speaker to
constitute protected conduct because they were not complaints or expressions
that he was in any way offended.
However, complaining to the VP about repeated derogatory statements
about other races “can be construed as a complaint about a hostile work environment
caused by racial and national origin discrimination.”
It did not matter that the comments
were not directed to him or about him.
It also did not matter that the individual incidents might not constitute
actionable harassment, if collectively they could do so. “We have repeatedly held that complaints to
human resources personnel regarding potential violations of Title VII constitute
protected activity for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of
retaliation.”
The district court had found the conversation
with the VP was too informal to constitute protected conduct. The Court conceded that in the past it has
“found that some complaints to human resources personnel are not sufficiently
specific to constitute opposition to employment discrimination.” It has not extended protection to complaints
about management style or vague comments of possible discrimination. However, it concluded that a good faith complaint
about a possible hostile work environment was sufficiently related to opposing
unlawful employment practices to warrant protection in this case.
The dissenting judge would have found
the comments to be protected under Title VII only if the plaintiff had brought
the issue to the attention of HR because it constituted discrimination against
him or against other employees. Instead,
the plaintiff admitted that he had only been venting and had not intended for
her to take any action. “Not every casual remonstrance against bad language
equates to complaining of illegal discrimination.”
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you
of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not
apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
