A recent case from the 10th Circuit case addresses a number of commonly mistaken beliefs regarding employment discrimination claims. The case of Carrera v. Tyson Foods involved a Title VII hostile work environment claim. Though the opinion is only 4 pages long, non-binding and did not even merit oral argument, it provides significant insight into the challenges of these types of claims.
The plaintiff, Mayra Carrera, worked in a meat processing plant for Tyson Foods. Several of Ms. Carrera's co-workers, both male and female, made sexually suggestive gestures with their hips toward the plaintiff. Ms. Carrera reported the conduct to management. Management promptly responded by speaking with the offending parties. There were no further incidents.
Ms. Carrera then "felt ostracized by employees keeping their distance." As a result, she requested and received a transfer to another post. Despite the fact that Tyson Foods responded to her complaint and even transferred her upon request, she filed a Title VII sex discrimination hostile work environment lawsuit.
The district court found that the conduct did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment because there were only "one or two isolated instances of boorish behavior" thus dismissing the case on summary judgment.
Ms. Carrera appealed arguing that the district court failed to consider the ostracizing behavior of her co-workers. The 10th Circuit disagreed citing the district courts correct observation that standoffish, unfriendly and/or unapproachable behavior cannot alone create a hostile work environment sufficient to support a claim.
The 10th went on to say that even if the offensive sexually suggestive conduct and the "ostracizing" behavior had created a hostile work environment, the claim would have rightfully been dismissed anyway as a result of Tyson's response to Ms. Carrera's report of misconduct.
The court did not specifically cite Faragher and Ellerth but Tyson would have benefitted from the affirmative defense under Faragher/Ellerth had it been necessary. Tyson clearly had a reporting procedure in place, and followed that procedure upon the report of misconduct by Ms. Carrera. Tyson both stopped the behavior and took action to avoid future misconduct against Ms. Carrera.
In short, this case encapsulates some very important points regarding employment law claims. First, isolated incidents are generally insufficient to create a hostile work environment. Second, rudeness or "ostracizing" behavior is also generally insufficient for a hostile work environment claim. Next, an employer has a defense if proper policies and procedures are in place and the employer followed those procedures for reporting, preventing and resolving the claims. In this case, Tyson acted as a responsible employer when it took prompt remedial action in response to Ms. Carrera's complaints.
This should serve notice to both employees and employers. Employees must report concerns promptly to their employers but cannot recover damages when the employer takes appropriate action to address the problem. Employers should take note that if they do not follow the lead of employers such as Tyson here, their failure to have such a system in place will put them at a severe disadvantage in the event of an employment discrimination claim.
Finally, what is less obvious from the opinion is that these types of claims are very difficult to win. Most get dismissed on summary judgment, meaning the plaintiff will not get to trial. Many more lose at trial. The difficulty and expense of these cases explain and dictate our very strict employment law case evaluation process when reviewing potential cases for employees claiming discrimination.
