Prevent Situations from Escalating into Dangerous Events! ePanic Button is a PC-based incident notification system that gives everyone control and peace-of-mind. Request a Demo» Get a Free Trial»
Protect Your Front Line Employees!
Contact Us:
www.epanicbutton.com contact@epanicbutton.com 919-701-9707
DECISIONPOINT THE SITUATION (continued from page 1)
She said the coworker hurtfully joked that her husband was leaving her for another woman, and in response to this provocation she spoke of guns and shootings. She also complained that this coworker was too friendly and smiled and stared at her too much. Ms. Gaff also said that at one point the coworker told her, ―All you need is a good f[____].‖
Ms. Gaff‘s supervisors were not convinced of her story, but they believed that even if it was true, it did not excuse her behavior. Ultimately they decided to terminate her employment for making a threat of violence against another employee. Ms. Gaff then filed suit in federal court claiming sexual discrimination and retaliatory discharge.
THE DECISION
When the trial court evaluated Ms. Gaff‘s claims, it found that she had failed to meet her burden of offering facts to support her claims of quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, retaliation and pretext. The Court put aside for the moment the issue of her threats against a coworker and evaluated the claims she made regarding that coworkers‘ alleged harassment and the company‘s actions in response. First, the Court found that even taking all her allegations as true, she did not allege that the coworker‘s behavior altered her employment or created an abusive work environment. Second, the behavior complained of did not cross the line from boorish and immature to harassment. Third, even though the company disputed that she reported any of the alleged harassment prior to her termination, Ms. Gaff conceded that she did not fully comply with the company‘s procedures for reporting harassment in the workplace. Finally, even though only 3-4 weeks passed between the time that she claims to have initially reported the harassment and her firing, the company offered a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for her firing--she threatened to shoot a coworker.
After the lower federal court dismissed her complaint, she appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The 10th Circuit upheld the dismissal, finding that though the record was full of evidence that Ms. Gaff‘s coworker acted immaturely, the remarks were isolated and the coworker had no authority over her--in fact, Ms. Gaff was his superior. Ms. Gaff also admitted during her deposition that most of Mr. Nelson‘s conduct would not have offended anyone else.
LEARNING AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS
While the decision to uphold the dismissal of the claim in this case was good news for the company at issue, it could have very easily gone the other way. Decisions about discipline and termination in the context of workplace violence are always fact-dependent. Even in a situation such as the one presented here, with an unrefuted threat of violence, the decision to terminate the employee may not be justified under the law.
Continued on page 23 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27