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.
- Senior Attorney
An attorney in the firm’s Detroit office, Claudia D. Orr exclusively represents and advises employers and management in employment and labor law matters.
Ms. Orr's clients include Fortune 500 companies, local governments ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Labor Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Minimum Wage
- Human Resources
- Employment Discrimination
- Business Risk Management
- Title VII
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Sick Leave
- Employment Agreement
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Class Actions
- Workplace Harassment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Coordinating Employee Leaves of Absence
- Department of Labor Publishes Final 'Joint Employer' Regulation
- Practical Advice for Creating Effective Managers
- Non-Discretionary Bonuses Affect Overtime Pay, Other Wage Issues
- Michigan Supreme Court Decides not to Issue Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of the PMLA
- Employers Should act Despite Supreme Court ‘Adopt and Amend’ Cliff Hanger
- Appellate Court Scores Employee’s FMLA Abuse Claim as Below Par
- What Should Michigan Employers do now That Recreational Marijuana Is Legal?
- Lessons Learned – Part Three – The Oral Contract
- Lessons Learned – Part Two – Punitive Damages