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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more