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 www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 15, 2019

EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, and Planning for 2019

May 15, 2019

As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.  Highlights include: Pay Equity Lawsuits: The Next Wave of Litigation... Read More

May 7, 2019

Kentucky Employers Must Be Represented by Counsel in Unemployment Compensation Hearings, Court Rules

May 7, 2019

Non-lawyers may no longer represent employers in unemployment compensation hearings in Kentucky, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled. Nichols v. Kentucky Unemployment Commission, et al., No. 2017-CA-001156-MR, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 73 (Ky Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019). The Court held the section of the Kentucky unemployment compensation... Read More

April 24, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court: Employment Class Arbitration Must Be Expressly Addressed in Contract

April 24, 2019

Class action arbitration is such a departure from ordinary, bilateral arbitration of individual disputes that courts may compel class action arbitration only where the parties expressly declare their intention to be bound by such actions in their arbitration agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision. Lamps Plus, Inc.... Read More

Related Practices