There is more bad news for employers in a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that reversed, in part, a district court’s dismissal of one particular hostile work environment claim.
In Yazdian v Conmed Endoscopic Technologies, Inc., the employee complained to his direct supervisor that there was a “hostile work environment” and that “he would respond with counsel…and charges.”
The appellate court found that these statements, without mention of any protected status, discrimination, or civil rights laws, were sufficient to put the employer on notice that the employee was complaining about unlawful discrimination. Once on notice, the employer’s duty to investigate and take prompt and appropriate action is triggered.
So, it is a good practice to always investigate whenever an employee complains about a “hostile work environment.” And, yes, employees sprinkle those terms around like salt on popcorn, but failure to investigate will result in the employer losing a major affirmative defense.
The news got even worse for the employer in Yazdian. The appellate court also found that the supervisor provided direct evidence of a retaliatory motive by pointing to the employee’s complaint of a hostile work environment as evidence of the employee’s unwillingness to accept constructive criticism. The court noted that summary dismissal is not proper when the employer cites the employee’s “tone of voice or manner of speaking” (or attitude) as the cause of termination, especially in the context of a Title VII claim of retaliation.
The takeaway here… it is always wise to consult with employment counsel prior to making termination decisions and preparing discharge documents.
Comments
Add a comment
Topics
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Agreement
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- At Will Employment
- Minimum Wage
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- COVID-19
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Noncompete Agreements
- No Tax on Overtime
- Overtime
- Payroll
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Arbitration
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Civil Rights
- Regulatory Law
- Contract Employees
- Title VII
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Sick Leave
- Tax Law
- Workplace Harassment
- Earned Sick Time
- Retaliation
- Transgender Issues
- OSHA Issues
- Contracts
- Unemployment Benefits
- Federal Trade Commission
- Business Risk Management
- Hostile Work Environment
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Accommodations
- Cannabis
- Public Education
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Department of Labor Proposes Rule Altering Joint Employer Analysis
- Federal Policy Favors Arbitration but Poor Drafting Derails Enforcement
- An Employers Guide to New OBBBA Overtime Reporting Requirements
- Federal Court Rules State Discrimination Claims Subject to Mandatory Arbitration
- Are Boilerplate Terms in Employment Applications Enforceable?
- Is Your Business Ready for Pay Transparency Laws?
- Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split in Reverse Discrimination Cases
- Michigan Legislature Avoids Chaos by Amending Earned Sick Time Act Just Prior to Deadline
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules




