False Rumor That Employee Slept With Her Supervisor For a Promotion Could Lead to Title VII Liability Against Employer For Discrimination Against Employee "Because of Sex"

Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  From December 2014 until May 2016, Evangeline Parker ("Parker") worked for Reema Consulting Services, Inc. ("Reema") at a warehouse facility.  She was promoted six times and ultimately became Assistant Operations Manager in March of 2016.  Approximately two weeks after she obtained the Assistant Operations Manager position, she learned that certain male employees were circulating within Reema "an unfounded, sexually-explicit rumor about her" that "falsely and maliciously portrayed her as having [had] a sexual relationship" with a higher ranking manager, Demarcus Pickett ("Pickett"), in order to obtain her promotion.  The rumor apparently started with Donte Jennings ("Jennings"), another Reema employee, that had started working at the company at the same time as Parker but because of Parker's promotions, came to become jealous and hostile toward her.

The highest ranking manager at the warehouse, Larry Moppins ("Moppins"), participated in spreading the rumor, asking Pickett "hey, you sure your wife ain't divorcing you because you're f--cking [Parker]?"  As the rumor spread, Parker "was treated with open resentment and disrespect" from many coworkers, which made her work environment increasingly hostile.  In April of 2016, when Moppins called a mandatory staff meeting and Parker and Pickett arrived a few minutes late, Moppins let Pickett into the room but "slammed the door in Ms. Parker's face and locked her out."  Parker learned the next day that the false rumor was discussed at the meeting.  When Parker sought to address the rumor with Moppins, Moppins blamed Parker for "bringing the situation to the workplace."  Moppins proceeded to tell Parker that "he could no longer recommend her for promotions or higher-level tasks because of the rumor" and "would not allow her to advance further within the company."  After meeting again a few days later to discuss the rumor, Moppins again blamed Parker and said he should have terminated her when she began "huffing and puffing about this BS rumor."

Parker proceeded to file a sexual harassment complaint against Moppins and Jennings with Reema's Human Resources Manager.  Jennings subsequently filed a complaint against Parker claiming she "was creating a hostile work environment against him through inappropriate conduct."  While Parker was told to avoid Jennings, Jennings continued to spend time in Parker's work area, smirking and laughing at her.  Parker's complaints to the Human Resources Manager were not addressed.  In May of 2016, Parker met with Moppins, the Human Resources Manager, and Reema's in house counsel.  After receiving two written warnings (in regard to Jennings' complaint against Parker and Parker's alleged poor management ability) she was terminated.

Parker proceeded to file a hostile work environment claim for discrimination because of sex, a retaliatory termination claim, and a discriminatory termination claim that Reema terminated her prior to its three warnings rule.  The district court dismissed Parker's case for failure to state a claim and that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive.  Parker subsequently appealed.

Holding:  (Note, this brief only analyzes the Title VII portion of Parker's claim, not whether she exhausted her claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.)

Title VII provides it is unlawful for an employer "to discharge...or otherwise to discriminate" against an employee "with respect to...conditions...of employment, because of such individual's...sex...; or to limit, segregate, or classify [such] employee[]...in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive [the employee] of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect [the employee's] status as an employee, because of such [employee's]...sex."  To state a claim under Title VII for a hostile work environment because of sex, the claimant must allege workplace harassment that 1) was "unwelcome"; 2) was based on the employee's sex; 3) was "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and 4) was, on some basis, imputable to the employer.  The Fourth Circuit noted that only the second and third factors were at issue.

Because of Sex

In this case, Reema argued that the actions toward Parker were not taken because she is female but rather because of her rumored conduct in sleeping with her boss to obtain the promotion.  Accordingly, Reema argued this rumor was not "gender specific" but rather was "solely about [Parker's] conduct and insufficient to support claims of an illegal hostile work environment for women."  The Court was unswayed, however, finding that Reema failed to take into account all the allegations of the complaint, particularly those that dealt with the sex-based nature of the rumor and its effects as well as the inferences reasonably drawn from those allegations.  

Based upon the facts, the rumor was that Parker, a female subordinate, had sex with her male supervisor to obtain the promotion...which implied that Parker used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, by way of seduction, a promotion.  The Court pointed out this rumor invoked a deeply rooted perception that women, not men, use sex to achieve success.  As other circuits have held, rumors of a woman's "sleeping her way to the top" "could constitute a form of sexual harassment", a reasonable jury could find that it was a form of harassment when a rumor suggested that a woman gained influence over the head of the office because she was engaged in a sexual relationship with him, and gender stereotypes can give rise to sex discrimination claims in violation of Title VII.  Consequently, the Court held that Parker had plausibly alleged she suffered harassment because she was a woman.

Sufficiently Severe or Pervasive

As for the other factor at issue, Reema contended that the rumor circulated for only a few weeks and involved only a few slights.  Parker countered that the rumor was "frequent", "maliciously designed", "humiliating", "permeated through her workplace", and caused "open resentment and disrespect" from coworkers.  For a court to consider whether alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive, a court must "look[] at all the circumstances," including the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it [was] physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfere[d] with [the] employee's work performance."

As Parker plead, the frequency of the rumor was more than "a few slights."  The harassment toward Parker was continuous, preoccupying Parker as well as management and the employees at the warehouse location for the entire time of Parker's employment after her final promotion.  Notably, management was found to have contributed to the circulation of the rumor with Moppins spreading it as well.  As well, the rumor "goes right to the core of somebody's merit as a human being" to suggest that Parker was not promoted on worth but rather sexual favors.  The rumor and its consequences were found to have entailed "open resentment and disrespect" toward Parker such that it interfered with her work.  When considering the entire spectrum, the Court found the rumor and subsequent harassment to be sufficiently severe or pervasive.

Judgment:  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a false rumor that a female employee slept with her male boss to obtain a promotion can give rise to a valid Title VII claim for discrimination against her employer.

The Takeaway:  At the outset, I will caution readers that the Fourth Circuit did not say that Reema violated Title VII in regard to the harassment claim brought by Parker.  Rather, the Court held that when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Parker, as the Court was considering whether the district court properly dismissed her claim, Parker had established a valid Title VII harassment claim could be asserted against Reema.  A difference without a distinction?  Not necessarily.  In this case, Reema was just attempting to "survive" the motion to dismiss filed by Reema.  As a result, the alleged facts were viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, Parker.  I tend to agree that when looking at the facts here, Parker had established a valid Title VII claim could exist against Reema.  It certainly appears that Reema allowed the rumor to spread, failed to take action when Parker complained to the Human Resources Manager, and permitted a hostile work environment to exist, after this rumor became known.  A word of caution to employers:  If you are ever confronted with a similar situation, do the exact opposite of what Reema did here.  Inaction can potentially be detrimental when confronted with a Title VII claim such as this.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Niemeyer

Date:  February 8, 2019

Opinion:  https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/18-1206/18-1206-2019-02-08.pdf?ts=1549654247