DECISIONPOINT THE SITUATION (continued from page 1)
The plaintiff reacted poorly to the news, lost her temper and was placed on administrative leave. The town then alleged that the plaintiff was deficient in her prior job performance, alleging that it had uncovered incidents of dishonesty which it discovered while investigating the plaintiff‘s assault and harassment complaint. The plaintiff was on leave for five months and then terminated.
THE DECISION
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that she was retaliated against after complaining about the alleged sexual assault by a co-worker and sexual discrimination at the workplace. The retaliation included reprimanding and wrongful termination. The defendant denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the plaintiff‘s employment was terminated for valid reasons unrelated to the alleged assault and her complaints.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded a total of $69,500 in damages consisting of $49,500 against the defendant town for retaliation and wrongful termination of employment and $20,000 against the male co-worker defendant for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
LEARNING AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS
The jury‘s verdict in this case represents a clear rejection of the town-employers attempts to argue that her complaints regarding the assault and harassment had nothing to do with her termination. While the outcome in these matters hinges largely upon the credibility of the witnesses at trial and the extent to which the jury believes that any other legitimate business factor was the reason for the adverse employment action, this case speaks to a larger lesson--one of proportionality. Here, the defendant‘s asserted bases for the termination decision appeared, to the jury, to be petty and contrived.
The defendant introduced evidence that several months prior the plaintiff filing a complaint, the plaintiff's supervisor met with her and verbally reprimanded her for rudeness toward town residents. The defendant then argued that a second meeting and reprimand that occurred just after she filed a complaint was a merely a coincidence--and not in retaliation for the plaintiff's complaint. Instead, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff‘s assault complaint triggered a chain of events that uncovered a number of additional problems with the plaintiff's job performance which had not been known before, including dishonesty. These arguments were rejected by the jury.
Employers must take any and all complaints of assault and harassment in the workplace seriously. Every investigation must be thorough and fair, to both parties. While such an investigation may lead an employer to uncover other issues with performance, the employer must be measured in its response to those issues. Proportionality is required. If another employee may only be verbally reprimanded for a certain behavior, an employee who has complained of harassment must also be treated the same way.
Here, the employer had a hard time overcoming the impression that its zealous investigation regarding the complaining employee‘s past performance was motivated solely by the complaint. This is another key lesson--the investigation regarding an alleged assault or complaint of harassment should be related to the complaint or issues raised in the complaint. When an employee‘s claimed certifications or prior attendance issues become the focus of the investigation (when they are not tied, factually, to the complaint), the impression left with the jury is one of retaliation.
RAND vs. TOWN OF EXETER, 1:11-cv-55 (D. N.H, February 14, 2014).
James L. Curtis
jcurtis@seyfarth.com 312.460.5815
Meagan Newman
mnewman@seyfarth.com 312.460.5968
Need Help with a problem? Visit our Resource Center to find an expert to help you resolve you issues.
19
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