Sixth Circuit Reverses Employer's Summary Judgment on Racial Harassment and Retaliation Claims Based On "Seemingly Neutral" Actions.

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a racial harassment and retaliation claim.  Jones v. Fluor Facility & Plant Services, No. 24-5249 (6^th Cir. 3/5/25).   The Court found that the plaintiff had produced enough evidence that "seemingly neutral" conduct was race related, severe and pervasive.   The plaintiff had also complained to his manager and supervisor, who took some remedial action, but his co-workers then began ostracizing him and hiding his equipment.  HR referred to his as “horseplay” that was unrelated to his race even though he was often referred to as “boy” and a ‘rapper” and “basket ball player.”

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired for the day shift, when he was harassed by a white co-worker for two weeks.  That co-worker was fired and the plaintiff was transferred to the nigh shift, where there were only five employees.  He was again racially harassed, including the n-word.  His supervisor took action within two weeks without him having to complain.  Thereafter, he was subjected to less obvious harassment, including hiding his equipment, ostracizing him, and stereotypical comments about how he must be good at basketball or be a rapper.  After he was counselled for working without his safety harness, which he alleged had been hidden from him by his racist co-workers, HR conducted an investigation which found the “horseplay” was unrelated to his race.   However, the investigation seemed to stall for several months, so he filed an EEOC Charge.  The district court also agreed that the alleged harassment, although daily, was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute actionable harassment and seemed unrelated to his race.   The Sixth Circuit reversed.

We conclude that [the plaintiff] has established, at the very least, a factual dispute as to whether this seemingly neutral conduct was race-related. We have said that “[c]onduct that is not explicitly race-based may be illegally race-based and properly considered in a hostile-work-environment analysis when it can be shown that but for the employee’s race, [he] would not have been the object of harassment.”

  . . . .

[The Plaintiff] presents evidence of two categories of incidents fairly tied to his race. The first set of incidents are verbal harassment directly linked to Jones’ race, the second set of incidents may facially present as race-neutral, but a factfinder could nevertheless infer that they were race-based.  . . .

As to the first category, Jones established three uses of the n-word by his coworkers: One direct usage, when [one co-worker] referred to [the plaintiff] as a “nigger,” and two indirect usages, when [another co-worker] used the term during the November 9 meeting to argue that it should be okay to continue to refer to [him] that way. The n-word is indubitably racist, “highly offensive and demeaning,” . . .

As the district court acknowledged, [the plaintiff] also submitted evidence that [a co-worker] goaded him to make racist jokes, and [that co-worker] told racist jokes himself. Whether [his] evidence of the “content or frequency” of these occurrences was insufficient, or whether they were “mere offensive utterances,” as the district court concluded,  . . .  goes to whether the harassment Jones faced was severe or pervasive, but not to whether the harassment was race-based. A factfinder could readily conclude that “but for” [his] race, he would not have been the subject of [that] goading.  . . .  The same is true for [that co-worker’s] comment that another white coworker,  . . . , was [his] “boy” after [that person] spilled oil on himself. [He] fairly understood this comment to be racial in nature, as it allows the inference that [the co-worker] was implying a familial relationship between [the person] and [the plaintiff] after [the person’s] skin was presumably rendered black because of the oil.

. . . “facially neutral abusive conduct can support a finding of animus sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim when that conduct is viewed in the context of other, overtly discriminatory conduct.” . . .

For the same reasons, we can attribute racial motivation to the night crew’s ostracization of [the plaintiff]. There were “multiple instances in which [he] was ostracized” as the only African American on the night crew. . .  As [his supervisor] testified, efforts to exclude [him] were led by [two coworkers], who had previously made racist comments or used racial epithets. Further, the ostracization coincided with racist verbal harassment. This provides sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Jones’ complained-of ostracization was based on race. . . .

A rational factfinder could also find that other incidents cited by [the plaintiff] that may lack explicit racial animus may nevertheless constitute racial harassment under Title VII. For one, [he] presented evidence that his white coworkers referred to him as “boy.” We have said that although not explicitly racial, a white colleague “referring to an adult African American colleague as ‘boy,’ without ‘modifiers or qualifications’ can qualify as evidence of impermissible racial bias.” . . . . Likewise, white coworkers’ comments referencing [him] being a rapper or a basketball player may not be explicitly racial out of context. But these comments undoubtedly reflected African American stereotypes such that a rational factfinder could find that they would not have been made but for Jones’ race, as Jones recognized.  . . . . Therefore, the comments may be “properly considered in a hostile-work environment analysis.” . . .

  . . .

In the present case, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to [the employer] on the severe or pervasive prong of [his] claims because there is sufficient evidence in the record that he subjectively regarded his work environment as abusive, and that his coworkers’ racial harassment was severe or pervasive enough for a reasonable person to find his work environment hostile. The district court did not separately evaluate the subjective and objective prongs of the severe or pervasive test and appeared to proceed solely on the objective prong. Nevertheless, [the employer] argues that [he] did not subjectively perceive a hostile work environment because he stated that [a co-worker’s] use of the n-word was a “term of endearment,” and he only complained of racial harassment in March 2021, “‘saving’ his complaint” for when he faced discipline for failing to use his harness.   . . .  We reject [its] arguments inasmuch as Jones has provided sufficient evidence that he subjectively regarded his work environment as hostile.

As an initial matter, “the intent of the alleged harasser is irrelevant in the court’s subjective prong analysis.”  . . .  That [the plaintiff] perceived that [a particular co-worker] meant his use of the n-word as a term of endearment does not mean that [he] perceived the slur to be inoffensive. And [the co-worker’s] intent “is not a defense under the subjective test if the conduct was unwelcome.”  . . .  [He] provided sufficient evidence that he regarded [the co-worker’s] use of the n-word to be offensive and unwelcome. [He] characterized [that] use of the slur as a “term of endearment” because [it] “said it to [him] as if we say it to each other all the time,” as though the two were friends.  . . .  But he clarified that he was not excusing [the] utterance of the slur as harmless.  . . .  [He] further described the possibility of [his co-worker] calling him the n-word again as a “problem” that was solved when [he] was moved to another work location and was “no longer in [his] face every day.”  . . . . [He] also made clear that he perceived his coworkers’ use of racial epithets to be offensive, and he perceived their conduct to be abusive.  . . . Indeed, by March 2022, [he] felt so abused by his coworkers that he expressed suicidal and homicidal ideation because of stress at work.  . . .

“In addition, the subjective component of the prima facie case does not require that a plaintiff report a hostile work environment.”  . . . So, contrary to [the employer’s] argument, [his] failure to report racial harassment to its human resources before March 2021 does not cut against our conclusion that he provided sufficient evidence that he perceived his work environment as abusive. “A plaintiff can be subjected to [racial] harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive as to constitute a hostile environment and yet, for a number of valid reasons, not report the harassment.”  . . .  For example, [he] testified that he did not immediately report [the] statement because he was afraid his coworkers would retaliate if he reported. He also questioned whether it would be “right” to report the incident, given that it would affect [his co-worker’s] career when [that person] was new to the workforce and, from [his] perspective, possibly unaware of the “mistake” he made in using the n-word.  . . .  Nevertheless, the record shows that [he] did report racial harassment multiple times before March 2021, albeit not directly to [its] human resources. [He] reported the incident with [day shift], on the day shift, to [his manager], presumably resulting in [the] firing. [He] also participated in the [his supervisor’s] November 9, 2020 meeting addressing the instances of harassment against [him] in November 2020. And, after [a co-worker] threw grease on his car, [he] immediately showed [his supervisor] evidence of [that] conduct. So, rather than “‘sav[e]’ his complaint of harassment for the proverbial ‘rainy day,’”  . . . . the record contains evidence that [he] brought his coworkers’ continual racial harassment to his superiors’ attention. At present, [he] has provided evidence, sufficient to preclude summary judgment, that he subjectively regarded his work environment as abusive.

 . . .

 . . . Viewing [his] evidence in the light most favorable to him, [he] experienced a weeks-long period of verbal hostility, . . . The verbal hostility “directly affected the day-to-day conditions of [his] work environment,” . . . so much so that his supervisor,  . . , “had enough” of the harassment and held a meeting to stop it.  . .  The verbal harassment did not stop after the meeting but continued. And, as in Schlosser, the verbal hostility escalated into a physical threat when [a co-worker] threw grease on [his] windshield.  . . .  In addition, [his] coworkers ostracized him for months, subjected him to stereotyping, and called him “boy.” This is clearly enough evidence of severe or pervasive harassment for Jones to submit his racially hostile work environment claim to a jury. Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, [he] does not allege instances of “offensive utterances and social avoidance . . . alone,”  . . .. Rather, he presents evidence of persistent racial harassment that took various forms, from overt verbal harassment, to physical conduct, to persistent stereotyping, to ostracization.

The district court came to its erroneous conclusion because it failed to consider all of [his] evidence of racial harassment, and failed to consider [his] evidence holistically. It erroneously discounted [his] evidence, other than “the use of racial epithets and the incident where [the co-worker] poured grease on his windshield,” id., for two reasons. First, it concluded that [his] evidence paralleled that in Reed v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., in which we found that a plaintiff’s allegations of an isolated racist gesture and racist remarks did not amount to severe or pervasive harassment when the plaintiff failed to tie his other allegations of harassment, including that he was the “subject of unfriendly treatment from some colleagues,” to his race.  . . .  Second, it concluded that “the majority of [his] claims [we]re simply too vague to support the notion that his coworkers’ conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive.”

But [his] evidence of ostracization, as well as his evidence that he was subjected to pervasive racial comments, stereotyping, and called “boy,” are fairly considered as contributing to the totality of severe or pervasive racial harassment. The cases on which [the employer] and the district court rely for the proposition that [his] complained-of workplace exclusion did not contribute to a pattern of severe or pervasive racial harassment, particularly Reed, are distinguishable.

The Reed plaintiff complained only of social isolation, not the ostracization that affected his work like in this case.

The district court also erred in removing many of [his] allegations of harassment from the severe or pervasive calculus on the grounds that the evidence was too vague. The court characterized [his] evidence of ostracization, stereotyping, and being called “boy” as insufficiently specific to contribute to the totality of the circumstances of severe or pervasive racial harassment. But we have “noted that when a victim makes allegations of ongoing harassment, the ‘inability to recount any more specific instances goes to the weight of her testimony, a matter for the finder of facts.’”

The Court also found that the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of retaliation by his co-workers to survive summary judgment.

However, the Court remanded the harassment claim for the court to consider whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the alleged racial harassment to impose vicarious liability because the trial court had not addressed that issue in its opinion.

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.

Sixth Circuit: Pro Se Plaintiff Gets Another Chance to Prove Unlawful Retaliation

Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed summary judgment for an employer on a retaliation claim brought by a pro se plaintiff while affirming dismissal of the underlying discrimination claim based on the same factual allegations.  Lasterv. City of Kalamazoo, No. 13-1640 (6^th Cir. 3-13-14).   The Court affirmed dismissal of the underlying discrimination claim because many of the alleged events had been remedied when grieved and had not been implemented with the intent of forcing the plaintiff to retire.   Without a constructive discharge, the Court concluded that the plaintiff could not show that he suffered a "materially adverse employment action" as necessary in a Title VII discrimination claim.  However, the Court concluded that the district court erred by analyzing the Title VII retaliation claim under the same analysis applied to the First Amendment retaliation claims and the Title VII discrimination claims.  Title VII retaliation claims have a lower burden of showing a “materially adverse action” and could survive summary judgment based on the same alleged facts that were just found insufficient to support a discrimination claim.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff alleged that during the 23 years he served as a public safety officer,

he was treated less favorably than similarly-situated co-workers. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that KDPS subjected Plaintiff to heightened scrutiny, selectively enforced policies against Plaintiff, and was complicit when individual employees harassed and discriminated against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that such disparate treatment was attributable, at least in part, to Plaintiff’s race or to his complaints about discrimination.

As examples, he complained about his sergeant downgrading a performance evaluation with the approval of the captain, but the decision was reversed when he filed a union grievance. He was initially denied permission to attend part of an out-of-state safety conference and was only approved for half of the expenses involved after two white employees were approved to attend for the full week with all of their expenses covered.   After a sergeant complained that the plaintiff and a white co-worker were disruptive in the meeting (with the white co-worker being particularly so, according to the sergeant), the plaintiff was suspended without pay for two days while his white co-worker suffered no disciplinary action.  When the plaintiff complained about the discriminatory treatment, his suspension was rescinded.  There was also an incident about an anti-Obama screensaver which was used a week after the plaintiff shared pictures of himself with the President.  The opinion details 11 such incidents over the few years before the litigation commenced.  

The plaintiff also filed several formal complaints of discrimination with the Human Resources Department.  When he felt that no one treated his complaints seriously, he filed an EEOC Charge, which resulted in a finding of probable cause of discrimination and request by the EEOC for the city employer to take certain actions.  When the city refused to take the requested actions, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice.  The plaintiff complained of additional harassment and retaliation to the EEOC, which was also referred to the DOJ.  Ultimately, instead of bringing its own lawsuit, the DOJ issued the plaintiff his own right-to-sue letter.

In the meantime, in June 2010, President Barack Obama was the guest speaker at the Kalamazoo Central High School commencement ceremony which was held at Western Michigan’s Field House. To ensure the President’s safety, KDPS positioned police personnel at all entrances. Plaintiff was not among those officers who were on duty that day. Rather, Plaintiff had acquired four tickets to attend the commencement with his family.

Plaintiff attended the commencement along with his wife and two daughters on June 7, 2010. Plaintiff contends that he had ascertained a permissible parking location in advance from a Western Michigan Public Safety Officer. According to Plaintiff, he parked in the indicated parking location without incident, and did not have any negative interactions with KDPS personnel, Secret Service, or any other individuals or law enforcement officers. According to Defendants, Plaintiff “crashed” his vehicle into a police car and left the scene of the accident, “negatively engaged with supervisory officers,” and tried to make an unauthorized entry into the area where the President of the United States was seated. Defendants contend that “Plaintiff entered the building and engaged in a series of acts that may have constituted violations of either law or department policy and rules.”

KDPS began an internal investigation into possible wrongdoing by Plaintiff. During the investigation, KDPS interviewed Plaintiff and various employees who either interacted with or observed Plaintiff that day. Each witness submitted varying factual encounters of the incident, but the investigation resulted in no conclusive findings that Plaintiff had been drinking or was intoxicated.

 . . .

In August 2010, when KDPS had concluded its internal investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged wrongdoing, Plaintiff and Union Representative Laura Misner were provided with notice that Plaintiff would have a “pre-determination hearing” on September 2, 2010. . . .

Prior to the scheduled pre-determination hearing, Plaintiff was advised that if he were terminated, he would not be eligible for health insurance benefits for his dependents––including his pregnant wife and two young children––and his retirement package would be deferred. Plaintiff was extremely concerned about losing health insurance benefits for his family.

This inaccurate COBRA advice about his health benefits was confirmed in writing by the Human Resources Department, although there was no evidence that the misstatements were intentional or communicated with a discriminatory or retaliatory intent.  Plaintiff was also informed that there were rumors that he was to be terminated at the conclusion of the pre-determination hearing, although he would be able to appeal his termination through the union grievance process.   He was, therefore, encouraged by a number of people to retire in order to avoid termination and the loss of his health benefits.  However, because he would be retiring after 23 years of service, he would not be eligible for a full pension that employees with 25 years of service receive.  Following his retirement, the city released a copy of its investigation report into the graduation ceremony incident pursuant to a FOIA request by a reporter.   The local newspaper reported the story and included an internet link to his entire personnel file, which greatly embarrassed the plaintiff and his family. He then filed suit.

No Materially Adverse Employment Action to Support Title VII Discrimination Claim.  With respect to the plaintiff’s Title VII race discrimination claim, the Court concluded that the plaintiff could not show that he had been constructively discharged and had failed to precisely identify other discriminatory events, and thus, had not suffered a materially adverse employment action.

In the context of a Title VII discrimination claim, an adverse employment action is defined as a “materially adverse change in the terms or conditions” of employment. Kocsis v.Multi-Care Mgmt. Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 885 (6th Cir. 1996). An adverse employment action “constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998). Adverse employment action “requires an official act of the enterprise, a company act. The decision in most cases is documented in official company records, and may be subject to review by higher level supervisors.” Id. at 762. In addition, it typically “inflicts direct economic harm.” Id.

Most of the alleged events (such as his unpaid suspension) which plaintiff identified had been rectified through the union grievance process and, therefore, could not constitute a basis for discrimination after they had been cured.   The Court concluded that there was also insufficient evidence of a constructive discharge.  “A constructive discharge occurs when the employer, rather than acting directly, ‘deliberately makes an employee’s working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced into an involuntary resignation.’”  It can also occur “where, based on an employer’s actions, “the handwriting was on the wall and the axe was about to fall.” 

Although Plaintiff has presented some evidence that he was subjected to heightened scrutiny and treated differently than his non-minority peers, he has not presented any evidence that this behavior was undertaken with the specific intention of forcing Plaintiff to quit. Indeed, Plaintiff ultimately resigned not because of the “intolerable” working conditions, but because he received bad information. Upon review of the evidence, it appears that this informational error was inadvertent and was not intended to force Plaintiff to quit. Simply put, Plaintiff has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that Defendants deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing Plaintiff to quit.

The Court also found insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was certain to be discharged if he did not first resign.  Although he heard rumors that he was to be terminated at the conclusion of the pre-disciplinary hearing, he had not heard these “rumors” from anyone with first-hand knowledge.  In other words, it was only speculation.

Sufficiently Adverse Employment Actions to Support Title VII Retaliation Claim.  Title VII also protects an employee’s opposition to discrimination.  Unlike Title VII discrimination claims which require evidence of materially adverse employment actions, retaliation claims only require evidence of materially adverse actions (whether employment related or not).   Also unlike Title VII discrimination claims, retaliation claims require evidence that the plaintiff would not have suffered the adverse actions “but for” the unlawful retaliation.

Plaintiff's burden of establishing a materially adverse employment action is “less onerous in the retaliation context than in the anti-discrimination context.” Michael, 496 F.3d at 595–96 (citing Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 67–71). Unlike a Title VII discrimination claim, “the antiretaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.” Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 57. To establish the third element of the prima facie Title VII retaliation claim, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. at 68 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In analyzing the significance of any given act of retaliation, “[c]ontext matters. . . . “A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, a nonactionable petty slight. But to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about  discrimination.” Id. at 82 (citing 2 EEOC 1998 Manual § 8, p. 8–14). “An act that would be immaterial in some situations is material in others.” Id. (citation omitted). “This more liberal definition permits actions not materially adverse for purposes of an anti-discrimination claim to qualify as such in the retaliation context.”

The Court then found that the plaintiff’s list of discriminatory events (which it found insufficient to support a Title VII discrimination claim) were sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether he had been retaliated against for complaining about discrimination and harassment by management and his co-workers.

Facing heightened scrutiny, receiving frequent reprimands for breaking selectively enforced policies, being disciplined more harshly than similarly situated peers, and forced to attend a predetermination hearing based on unfounded allegations of wrongdoing might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. There is a genuine issue of fact regarding whether or not Plaintiff was subject to materially adverse action, and whether Plaintiff’s protected activity (i.e., formal and informal complaints to human resources and the EEOC) was the cause of such action.

First  Amendment Claims.  The Court agreed that the plaintiff could not base a First Amendment retaliation claim on his filing his EEOC Charge.  To the extent that the claim is based on a complaint to the USDA about a co-worker’s activities, that could be protected conduct.  However, there was no evidence about his complaint to the USDA, that the employer was aware of it or that the employer retaliated against him because of it.

The concurring judge questioned whether the trial judge had erred in mis-analyzing the Title VII retaliation claim or had simply failed to notice the claim because the defendant employer had only moved for summary judgment on the discrimination and First Amendment claims.    As a result, she believed that the matter should have been remanded to the trial judge to examine the retaliation claim instead of analyzing it for him.

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.

Sixth Circuit Finds Production of Irrelevant Confidential Documents During Discovery Is Not Protected Participation or Opposition Under Title VII

On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit decided “the scope of protection that should be afforded to employees who disseminate confidential documents in violation of their employer’s privacy policy in the context of employment-related litigation.” In that case, the plaintiff had been fired after providing documents with confidential client information to the attorneys who were prosecuting a class action pay discrimination lawsuit on the behalf of her and other female employees. The Sixth Circuit held that her conduct was not protected by federal law and, therefore, the employer was permitted to discharge her for violating its confidentiality policy. Niswander v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 07-3738 (6th Cir. 6/24/08).

In Niswander, the plaintiff joined a class action pay discrimination lawsuit against her employer in 2003. She was a claims adjuster who worked from her home. She later came to believe that her employer retaliated against her for participating in that lawsuit, informed the human resources department in 2004 and filed an EEOC Charge the following year. She also informed the class action attorneys of her perceived retaliation and they indicated that they were interested in pursuing a claim on her behalf. When, in connection with the pre-trial discovery process, her attorneys asked her to provide copies of any documents “related to her employment” and “any documents you think might be even remotely helpful to our case,” she complied with their request so that they would not suffer sanctions from the court for failing to comply with the discovery process. Importantly, no lawsuit had been filed on her behalf allegation unlawful retaliation against her.

The plaintiff “admitted in her deposition that she had “no documents to support an equal pay [claim].” Instead, she sent documents that she believed were relevant to” the employer’s “alleged acts of retaliation against her. Some of the documents that Niswander sent were copies of e-mails back and forth with her supervisors related to her job performance. Other documents, however, were claim-file documents that allegedly would jog her memory regarding instances of retaliation, but that did not in and of themselves contain evidence of retaliation. In sending the documents to her lawyers, some of which included information about” her employer’s clients, the plaintiff “thought everything was confidential” and that “anything [she] produced was all between” her and the company’s attorneys. However, when her employer received copies of the confidential documents which she had given to her attorneys (to give back to her employer), it terminated her for violating its confidentiality policy.

Title VII prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . .
because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII] [the so-called “opposition clause”], or because [the employee] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII] [the so-called “participation clause”]. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).” In order to state a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in protected activity (i.e., opposition or participation), (2) the employer knew of the employee’s protected activity, (3) the employee later suffered from an adverse employment action, and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Ct., 201 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir. 2000). In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), the Supreme Court held that “the scope of Title VII’s retaliation provision is broader than that of Title VII’s discrimination provision.”

In Niswander, the court was required to decide whether the plaintiff’s provision of the confidential records to her attorneys constituted protected participation or opposition. “’The distinction between employee activities protected by the participation clause and those protected by the opposition clause is significant because federal courts have generally granted less protection for opposition than for participation in enforcement proceedings.’ Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1312 (6th Cir. 1989). With respect to the participation clause, we have recognized that the clause’s ‘exceptionally broad protections . . . extend[] to persons who have participated in any manner in Title VII proceedings. ‘Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 582 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce the activity in question is found to be within the scope of the participation clause, the employee is generally protected from retaliation.”

“’The opposition clause, on the other hand, covers conduct such as “complaining to anyone (management, unions, other employees, or newspapers) about allegedly unlawful practices; refusing to obey an order because the worker thinks it is unlawful under Title VII; and opposing unlawful acts by persons other than the employer—e.g., former employers, union, and co-workers.’ Johnson, 215 F.3d at 579. We have explained that ‘the only qualification that is placed upon an employee’s invocation of protection from retaliation under Title VII’s opposition clause is that the manner of [the employee’s] opposition must be reasonable.”

The court then held that the production of the confidential documents to her attorneys did not constitute protected participation because the documents were admittedly not relevant in any way to the pay discrimination claims being asserted in the pending lawsuit. “An individual’s delivery of relevant documents during the discovery process or the giving of testimony at a deposition clearly falls within the ambit of participating ‘in any manner’ in a Title VII proceeding. Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the purpose of the participation clause ‘is to protect the employee who utilizes the tools provided by Congress to protect his rights’).” However, to find that the plaintiff’s actions in this case constituted protected participation in the pay discrimination lawsuit, “would provide employees with near-immunity for their actions in connection with antidiscrimination lawsuits, protecting them from disciplinary action even when they knowingly provide irrelevant, confidential information solely to jog their memory regarding instances of alleged retaliation.”

Whether the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes protected opposition conduct depends upon a balancing of her interests with that of her employer. “A balance must be achieved between the employer’s recognized, legitimate need to maintain an orderly workplace and to protect confidential business and client information, and the equally compelling need of employees to be properly safeguarded against retaliatory actions. Allowing too much protection to employees for disclosing confidential information may perversely incentivize behavior that ought not be tolerated in the workplace—namely, the surreptitious theft of confidential documents as potential future ammunition should the employee eventually feel wronged by her employer. On the other hand, inadequate protection to employees might provide employers with a legally sanctioned reason to terminate an employee in retaliation for engaging in activity that Title VII and related statutes are designed to protect.”

Prior decisions had indicated that employees did not have the right to search their employer’s confidential personnel and other files in order to obtain documents in support of their discrimination claims. In another case, the court permitted an employee to provide his attorney with documents which he “innocently” obtained because they were on the hard drive of computer assigned to him by his employer.

“Based on the analysis applied by the courts in the cases discussed above, we believe that the following factors are relevant in determining whether Niswander’s delivery of the confidential documents in question was reasonable: (1) how the documents were obtained, (2) to whom the documents were produced, (3) the content of the documents, both in terms of the need to keep the information confidential and its relevance to the employee’s claim of unlawful conduct, (4) why the documents were produced, including whether the production was in direct response to a discovery request, (5) the scope of the employer’s privacy policy, and (6) the ability of the employee to preserve the evidence in a manner that does not violate the employer’s privacy policy. These factors are designed to take into account the employer’s ‘legitimate and substantial interest in keeping its personnel records and agency documents confidential’ and yet protect the employee’s alleged ‘need for surreptitious copying and dissemination of the documents.’”

In this case, the plaintiff “could have preserved the alleged evidence of retaliation in other ways; in particular, she could have taken notes of the incidents that she believed demonstrated retaliation instead of delivering documents that contained confidential policyholder information. Producing confidential documents for the sole purpose of jogging one’s memory, when there are readily available alternatives to accomplish the same goal, does not constitute the kind of reasonable opposition activity that justifies violating a company’s privacy policy.”

“Although employees deserve protection when they make reasonable attempts to preserve evidence of illegal employment practices, including discrimination and retaliation, ‘we are loathe [sic] to provide employees an incentive to rifle through confidential files looking for evidence that might come in handy in later litigation.’ O’Day, 79 F.3d at 763. To hold in favor of Niswander would turn the opposition clause into ‘a license to flaunt [sic] company rules or an invitation to dishonest behavior.’ Id. at 764. So even after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Niswander, we conclude that her production of the documents was not reasonable under the six factor test set forth above.”

“The only factors that arguably weigh in Niswander’s favor are factors one and two, but even those do not weigh heavily in her favor. Although she had access to the documents through her employment, Niswander did not innocently acquire the documents in the same manner as the plaintiff in Kempcke, who came across evidence of potential age discrimination in a company computer that had been issued to him. See Kempcke, 132 F.3d at 445. Rather than innocently stumbling upon evidence of illegal employment practices, Niswander specifically searched through the CIC documents that she had at her home office for the purpose of uncovering evidence of retaliation. Such behavior cannot be classified as truly innocent acquisition.”

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0221p-06.pdf.

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.

Sixth Circuit: Employers Can Now Be Liable for Off-Duty, Off-Site Retaliation by Co-Workers.

Yesterday, in Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No., 07-3235 (6th Cir. 2/19/08), a unanimous Sixth Circuit Court reinstated the co-worker retaliation claims of one plaintiff and affirmed the denial of a similar claims by a non-complaining witness to the harassment. This case is significant because it is the first time the Sixth Circuit has recognized an employer's liability for retaliation by a co-worker. In addition, even though the most significant retaliatory acts took place after working hours and off the company's property, the employer was faulted for not conducting a more thorough investigation.

In Hawkins, four women complained of sexual harassment by the same nefarious serial sexual harasser, who then allegedly retaliated against one of them and a witness by, among other things, slashing their tires at their home and in the company parking lot, scratching their cars, threatening to kill them, setting the car on fire of one of the women, and, burning down the home of the non-complaining witness. After the first sexual harassment complaint in 1993, the defendant employers fired the harasser, but he was reinstated following a union grievance arbitration. Apparently thinking that it would never be rid of the harasser following that arbitration, the employer failed to take significant action when they continued to receive complaints from female employees about the harasser’s lewd comments and touching. Rather, the employer generally responded by transferring the women to other production lines. After receiving additional complaints about more harassment and violent retaliation, the employer in July 2003 again fired the harasser, who lost his union grievance in arbitration. The following month, the harasser killed his girlfriend and committed suicide.

The Court noted that it had never previously recognized a claim for co-worker retaliation under Title VII. Indeed, the District Court had dismissed the retaliation claims on summary judgment on that basis. However, the Court recognized that a majority of the federal circuit courts to have addressed the issue determined that “Title VII protects against co-worker retaliatory harassment that is known to but not restrained by the employer.” Therefore, an employer can be liable for co-worker retaliation” if its response manifests indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known.”

In particular, the Sixth Circuit held that “an employer will be liable for the co-worker’s actions if:
(1) the co-worker’s retaliatory conduct is sufficiently severe so as to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or support a charge of discrimination;
(2) supervisors or members of management have actual or constructive knowledge of the co-worker’s retaliatory behavior; AND
(3) supervisors or members of management have condoned, tolerated, or encouraged the acts of retaliation, or have responded to the plaintiff’s complaints so inadequately that the response manifests indifference or unreasonableness under the circumstances."

The Court had no difficulty in finding liability in one case. In that situation, the employer never conducted an investigation because the retaliation (i.e., torching the victim’s car in driveway of her home) took place off company property and after working hours, but the employer nonetheless suspected the allegation of violence was true. The woman’s manager even told the Licking County Prosecutor's Office during the police investigation that the harasser had insinuated to him that he started the fire and that he was personally afraid of him and would not participate in the investigation. Another senior member of management had heard rumors that the harasser set the fire and that the victim believed the fire was set by the harasser. More importantly, the harasser had admitted to three co-workers that he set the fire. Although the employer was unaware of the admissions, this evidence created an inference “that [the harasser’s] threatening behavior and violent acts of retaliation were common knowledge to both coworkers and supervisors . . . and might have been substantiated by a more complete investigation.” “The [employer] never bothered to investigate the incident, monitor [the harasser], or create a safe environment for harassment complaints. A jury could find that, given what management knew about the fire, the [employer] had an obligation to investigate the incident.” This is one of the only cases by a federal court to fault an employer for not conducting a more complete investigation.

The Court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim by the non-complaining witness even though the harasser had poured gasoline down her basement and set fire to her house after he was fired. The Court found the employer’s response to her concerns of retaliation were sufficient: The employer fired the harasser, coordinated with law enforcement to have the harasser monitored, hired a security guard to follow him and offered the victim the protection of a security guard – which she refused.

Insomniacs may read the decision in full at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0081p-06.pdf.

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.