Skip to main content

A "Heil Hitler" Comment in the Workplace? Hold Off Before Filing Your Title VII Claim First


Satterwhite v. City of Houston - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Courtney Satterwhite ("Satterwhite") worked for the City of Houston ("City").  She reported a coworker, Harry Singh ("Singh"), for making a "Heil Hitler" comment during a meeting she attended in 2010.  (Singh claimed the said "you know, we're not in Hitler court.").  The Deputy Director of Human Resources verbally reprimanded Singh.  Singh later learned that Satterwhite had reported the comment. 

After Singh became Satterwhite's supervisor in June, he reprimanded Satterwhite on various occassions:  Satterwhite apparently was not at his desk for prolonged periods of time without informing others of his whereabouts and Satterwhite apparently changed the policy regarding how the office handled incoming government mail without properly communicating information about the change.  After the first incident, Satterwhite became upset and yelled at Singh.  In September, Satterwhite sent Singh an e-mail and stated he thought Singh reprimanded him as retaliation for reporting the "Heil Hitler" comment.  Afterward, Singh recommended that Satterwhite be demoted as a result of the verbal and formal reprimands.  

Once Satterwhite was demoted, he filed a complaint with the EEOC and brought suit alleging unlawful retaliation.  The district court granted summery judgment to the City and Satterwhite appealed.

Holding:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the City on the grounds that Satterwhite could not reasonably believe that a single comment created a hostile work environment claim under Title VII.  As the Court noted, a hostile work environment is determined "by looking at all the circumstances" including the frequency and severity of the conduct.  Based upon the case law, in this instance, the isolated incident was held to not be actionable conduct under Title VII. 

As for Satterwhite's Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("TCHRA") claim, the Court also held that no valid cause of action existed.  The TCHRA provides for the execution of the policies of Title VII.  The Court held that since the TCHRA is analyzed under the same standard as Title VII claims, Satterwhite could not prevail on this cause of action since no valid Title VII claim was found to exist.

In regard to the retaliation claim by Satterwhite, the Court found insufficient insufficient evidence to allow this claim to proceed as the employer had a legitimate business reason for reprimanding and demoting him.  In order to proceed on a retaliation claim, there must be a "protected activity."  Since a protected activity requires a reasonable belief that something created a hostile work environment, the Court held the lack of a reasonable belief in this case prevented the retaliation claim from moving forward.

Judgment:  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that Satterwhite did not engage in protected activity and therefore did not have a valid Title VII or TCHRA claim against the City.

The Takeaway:  I think it would be a mistake to just assume right off the bat that saying "Heil Hitler" is okay in the workplace without risking a lawsuit.  In this instance, the Court's ruling turned on the fact that the comment was a single, isolated incident.  Had there been more frequent "Heil Hitler" type of comments in the workplace and had Satterwhite been able to show it interfered with his work (ie showing a reasonable belief that the conduct created a hostile work environment), there would have been a stronger Title VII claim. 

Employers should take this ruling as a bit of a warning:  isolated incidents might not be actionable conduct under Title VII, but that still does not prevent these types of claims from proceeding.  Educating managers and supervisors on appropriate (and inappropriate conduct) can go a long way in avoiding situations like this that can give rise to Title VII claims.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Per Curiam

Date:  March 3, 2015

Opinion:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/257700779/Satterwhite-v-City-of-Houston

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more