Search form

Single Remark Is No Reasonable Basis for Sexual Harassment; Transfer Is Not Retaliation

  • July 1, 2001

Finding "no one could reasonably believe that the incident" constituted sexual harassment, the U. S. Supreme Court rejected a claim by a school district human resources administrator that her complaints about a sexually offensive remark triggered a retaliatory transfer to another position. The HR administrator failed to show a causal connection between the charges and her involuntary transfer to another job with the same pay and benefits but lacking promotion potential, the Supreme Court said.

The offending remark was made in the context of a meeting with several supervisors to review job applications. After filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the state fair employment practices agency, the employee filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed her subsequent transfer was in retaliation for filing the charges and the lawsuit.

Contrary to the federal appeals court, the Supreme Court found no causal connection between the administrator's filing of the charges and the job transfer, and therefore no unlawful retaliation. Although filing the charges and the lawsuit was protected activity, the Court found the HR administrator failed to show the necessary connection between the activity and the transfer to support a claim of retaliation.

In attempting to show a causal connection, the administrator relied upon the proximity between the filing of the lawsuit and a statement made by her supervisor about the transfer. However, the Court found the fact that the supervisor transferred her soon after learning about the lawsuit was "immaterial" because the supervisor had been considering the transfer already. "Employers need not suspend previously planned transfers upon discovering that a Title VII suit has been filed, and their proceeding along lines previously contemplated, though not yet definitively determined, is no evidence whatever of causality," the Court said. [Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. ___ (2001).]

©2001 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

December 13, 2019

Restaurant Industry Workplace Law Update – Fall 2019

December 13, 2019

To assist restaurant owners and professionals in assessing emerging employment risks, we are pleased to provide the first issue of our newsletter. The Restaurant Industry Workplace Law Update highlights topical issues in claims, defenses, and liability risk management developments. Supreme Court’s Epic Systems Decision on Arbitration... Read More

December 12, 2019

California Bar on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Employment Challenged, Injunction Sought

December 12, 2019

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have filed suit in federal court against the State of California to have AB 51 declared preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB. Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that AB 51’s... Read More

December 10, 2019

End of Year Developments for New York Employers

December 10, 2019

As 2019 comes to a close, legislative and administrative actions in New York require consideration by employers in the state. First, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation adding reproductive rights as a protected class under the state Human Rights Law. Such an enactment usually requires an employer: (1) to ensure that there is... Read More

Related Practices