At the end of last year, the unanimous Franklin County Court of Appeals found that the existence of a “toxic work culture” (as described by a concurring opinion) does not necessarily mean a legally hostile work environment or unlawful discrimination. Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2022-Ohio-4783. The plaintiffs were assigned by one state agency to work alongside the employees of another state agency, which had its own rules and disciplinary procedures. Even though all of the employees (including the plaintiffs) reported to the same supervisor, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs could not compare themselves to the other agency’s employees without evidence that they had been subject to and violated similar rules or evidence that such rules had been violated by anyone outside their protected class. They also could not show pretext when they admitted violated DYS rules. Finally, they could not base hostile work environment claims on overhearing a relatively few number of vague conversations about politically charged and potentially race-based issues (like gun control, police shootings, abortion, unidentified movies, lynching, homophobia, etc.) which were not directed at them personally, and were not physically threatening or humiliating. The plaintiffs’ subjective reaction to the alleged conduct could show that it interfered with their work, but it could not prove that the workplace was objectively hostile or abusive to a reasonable person. The Court also rejected the retaliation claim for being filed outside the two-year statute of limitations under the Court of Claims Act.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiffs worked at
an IT Help Desk staffed by both ODRC and DYS employees, which were subject to
the rules of their respective agencies. All of the ODRC employees were white and the
DYS employees were black. There was one
mixed race contractor. The plaintiffs
admittedly violated rules of their employing agency and apparently were unaware
of the rules governing the employees of the other agency, merely assuming that
they were the same, and whether the other employees had obtained prior authorization for their actions. One plaintiff worked a tiny
amount of unauthorized overtime. One plaintiff corrected his own timesheet on the computer without prior authorization.
They both learned from the contractor that the ODRC employees had
been called into a meeting with their supervisor and told if they had
complaints about the plaintiffs, they had to complete written incident reports. The plaintiffs similarly submitted written complaints
about the ODRC employees, became upset by the situation, eventually visited EAP and then left work for mental health reasons before filing
their lawsuit, which was dismissed on summary judgment.
The appeals court found that they could not prevail on
discrimination claims for a number of reasons.
First, they could not show that the ODRC employees had violated similar
rules because the ODRC employees were subject to ODRC rules, not DYS rules, and
there was apparently no evidence what those rules were or whether their conduct had been previously authorized. Second, the plaintiffs admittedly violated
DYS rules and could not show that their disciplinary action and coaching was pretextual
for discrimination. The Court also found
that it was speculative that the meeting held with the ODRC employees was
racially motivated merely because the employees were all white because it is a
legitimate business reason to meet with employees to explain the complaint procedures
and the contractor was not at her desk when the meeting was called.
The Court also rejected the hostile work environment claims.
First, the plaintiffs could not rely on
the alleged discriminatory conduct which had already been rejected. Second, it found that the relatively few
overheard conversations – i.e., no more than six in a four-to-six month period –
were too infrequent to be “pervasive” or support a hostile work environment
claim. They were also not severe enough:
Considering all the circumstances, we agree with the Court of Claims that appellants have not demonstrated circumstances severe enough to constitute harassment within the meaning of a hostile work environment claim. The conversations appellants overheard, while offensive utterances and in poor taste, were infrequent and did not occur regularly. [Plaintiffs] alleged they overheard these conversations only a few times and could not provide specific details about when they occurred or the contents of the conversations beyond their general topics. Additionally, the conversations were not directed at appellants, and the "second-hand" nature of the comments is relevant to determination of their severity.
While the plaintiffs could show that the alleged conduct subjectively
affected them and forced them to leave their jobs, a subjective feeling or
belief is not evidence of an objectively hostile or abusive work environment:
Though appellants alleged the working conditions were so hostile as to force them to separate from their employment, this argument only reflects appellants' subjective perceptions of the conduct. However, in order for the conduct to be actionable under a hostile work environment claim, appellants must also demonstrate the conduct is severe and/or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment. . . . The work environment is objectively hostile or abusive where it is "an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive." (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. "Mere utterance of an * * * epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment" to create a hostile work environment. (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Here, appellants put forth evidence that they did not get along with their ODRC counterparts at the help desk. However, mindful of the stringent standard applicable to hostile work environment claims, appellants simply do not allege sufficient harassment based on race such that there is a genuine issue of material fact on this claim. Based on the Civ.R. 56 evidence presented, the conversations [Plaintiffs] overheard were infrequent, isolated incidents, and the conversations were not directed at appellants. The comments were not physically threatening or sufficiently humiliating to create a hostile work environment claim. Appellants failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact that the alleged conduct was so severe or pervasive as to create an objectively hostile work environment. . . . Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Claims that appellees are entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim.
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.
