PART II:
Pussy Willow Plant a Sexual Gift?
The first thing HR did when Sharon made her complaint was to transfer her to a different office down the hall from Dan, where she would have a new supervisor named Crogle. A harassed employee should not have to keep working for the harassing boss, so this was a good move by the company to avoid creating a hostile work environment for Sharon. Or was it?
The “terms and conditions” of Sharon’s employment should remain the same according to law. Sharon’s pay did stay the same. Her “new” office, however, was much worse. Lead based paint was flaking off the walls and landing on Sharon’s desk. Her new boss, Crogle, answered to Dan. So ultimately Dan was still her boss. Was this really a better, safer situation for her, or was it worse? It contributed to a hostile work environment.
The court even pointed out that the company never offered Sharon a position that did NOT ultimately answer to Dan. Her chain of command remained the same, but her office got worse.
First Crogle changed Sharon’s work hours. Then after about two months Crogle started screaming at Sharon. Sharon believed Crogle was retaliating against her on Dan’s behalf. Even though he took away her responsibilities and she had little work to do, he would yell at her in front of the rest of the people in the department. One other female employee said that Sharon was “ostracized” by Crogle and other co-workers because Sharon had reported Dan’s harassment. This also contributed to Sharon’s retaliation claim and hostile work environment claim.
When HR interviewed Dan about Sharon’s report, he claimed that she was just upset with him for not being more supportive when she filed for workers compensation. When HR asked about the “flat ass” comment, Dan admitted saying it, but claimed he was merely repeating what Sharon herself had told Dan.
HR also asked Dan if he said that he wanted to choke Sharon. His answser?
- “I do not recall”
Did you say you wanted to choke her?
- “I have no recollection of saying that”
Did you say you wanted to see her in a coffin?
- “I have no recollection”
Did you pick up scarves from her desk and smell them?
- “No recollection”
Did you make a comment about Sharon “spreading her legs for the doctor”?
- “No recollection”
Then Dan claimed that Sharon had initiated conversations with him about her breast size and her sex life! If essence, he was trying to claim that: 1) no I didn’t say any of this; and 2) if I did say any of this, Sharon consented to it when she started sexual conversations with me, so these comments cannot contribute to a hostile work environment (because she “welcomed” the comments).
This is a classic case of the company turning against the whistleblower and trying to scorch the earth all around the harassed person, in order to spare the company. I actually don’t think the company cares about the harasser or the harassed one way or the other… the company really doesn’t care if there are employees working in a hostile work environment. The company just doesn’t want to lose money. One wrinkle is that the company will go to great lengths to protect the harasser if the harasser is making the company money. This is why top sales people can get away with murder.
And in this case, Dan must have been making money for Electric Boat, since they tired to protect him despite the fact that he told Sharon he wanted to see her in a coffin. How can you get any closer to threatening to kill someone without actually saying “I’m going to kill you.” And one time, remember, Dan did say to Sharon, “I will kill you.” Despite all that, the company claimed that Sharon welcomed Dan’s behavior and none of what he said would cause a “reasonable person” to feel she was working in a hostile work environment.
THE LAWSUIT
First Sharon filed an EEOC complaint against Electric Boat for creating a hostile work environment based on sex, for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to the comments by Dan about seeing her dead and choking her, and for retaliation because she lost responsibilities, work hours, her work station, and was screamed at, beginning right after she filed her hostile work environment complaint.
In December of 2006, after receiving a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC, Sharon filed a lawsuit against Electric boat and Dan McCarty for: 1) hostile work environment; 2) retaliation for blowing the whistle on the ways Dan was causing a hostile work environment; and 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
One month after she filed her hostile work environment lawsuit, in January of 2007, Electric Boat told Sharon she had to undergo psychiatric testing because the company believed she was suffering from paranoia. Sharon agreed to the test “under protest”, but after 8 days she had not scheduled the exam. The next day Electric Boat fired Sharon — a 34 year employee — because she had not scheduled the exam quickly enough.
During the litigation, the company claimed that ordering a psychiatric evaluation was in no way connected to Sharon’s hostile work environment complaint.
The company also claimed that everything Sharon complained about — the “flat ass” comments, the pussy willow plant, the scarves, the “spread your legs for the doctor” comments in front of others, and the threats of wanting to choke her, see her dead, or in a coffin — all of it, even if true, did not amount to a “hostile work environment.”
On March 1, 2009, the trial court issued it’s opinion on Electric Boat’s summary judgement motion — where Electric Boat asked the court to throw the case out.
Find out what happened by checking back and reading Part III of this article. It will be posted soon!
TAKE ACTION NOW
I explain all about how to fight back against a hostile work environment caused by an irrational bullying boss in my e-book, “Work Laws Exposed”. Click here to learn how you can use my letter template today and hand it to your employer tomorrow to start fighting back and taking control of your work life right now.
Related posts:
