TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Ruling highlights harassment case hurdles

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 27, 2009

On Feb. 26, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of an employer in the case of Latrece Lockett vs. Choice Hotels International. Locket, who worked at the hotel's reservations desk, alleged that her employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act because a male coworker made sexual comments to her when she visited the hotel cafeteria, where he worked. When she complained, the company investigated and the male employee was fired. Lockett was fired because of threats she made toward her male coworker.

A trial judge may enter a summary judgment when the pleadings, discovery materials, affidavits and deposition transcripts show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In essence, the trial judge determines that there is no need to let the case proceed to trial. The Lockett case makes clear the difficulty employees may have in prevailing on their discrimination claims in which competent counsel is guiding and advising the employer.

Lockett, for the record, was well represented by Palm Harbor attorney Wolfgang Florin. Florin's firm, which only handles employee claims, recently opened an office on Little Road across from the West Pasco Judicial Center.

Both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act prohibit employers from discriminating against an individual with respect to compensation, terms or conditions of employment because of the individual's gender. Because Florida modeled its act after Title VII, courts generally apply Title VII case law to state law discrimination claims. An employer violates Title VII when it creates a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment.

To establish a sexual harassment claim, an employee must show that:

•She is a member of a protected classification, and being a woman qualifies.

•She has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment.

•The harassment was based on her gender.

•The harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment.

•A basis for holding the employer liable exists.

Courts have made clear; however, that Title VII does not serve as a general code of civility. Simple teasing, offhand comments and isolated incidents generally do not constitute sexual harassment. A workplace must be permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult to constitute an abusive working environment.

In this case, the employer prevailed because it investigated the employee's harassment claim and took appropriate action in firing the offending coworker. The employer also enforced its written policy against sexual harassment - a policy that the complaining employee failed to properly follow. Although offensive, the conduct did not rise to the level of severe, physically threatening or humiliating.

Randall Love is an attorney with Randall J. Love & Associates, New Port Richey, and practices in the areas of employment law, commercial and real estate litigation, personal injury and probate litigation. He is a certified Circuit Court mediator.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT