Skip to main content

Two Comments By Another Employee, Although Inappropriate, Did Not Create A Hostile Work Environment


Walker-Dabner v. Dart - United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division


Facts:  Patsy Walker-Dabner ("Walker-Dabner") worked at the Cook County Sheriff's Office beginning in July of 1991 and currently oversees the art program at the Cook County Jail.  As overseer of the art program, Walker-Dabner brought books, taught detainees how to draw and paint, and transported detainees to the dispensary, law library, chapel, the Board of Education, or to see a social worker.  In July of 2014, Walker-Dabner began a shift in which her assignment was to transport detainees from the "A pod" to the medical unit.  When Walker-Dabner went to the A pod, there were several detainees beating on the window, hitting the door, and yelling for attention.  Correctional Officer Black Bochnak ("Bochnak") was standing outside the closed door.  When Walker-Dabner asked Bochnak why the detainees were hitting the door, he responded "Those are your people.  Those are not my people.  Do what you have to do for your people."  (There was later disagreement in regard to whether Bochnak instead said "Those are your black people.  Those are not my black people.", in reference to the detainees.)  When Walker-Dabner asked him if he knew what he was saying, Bochnak responded "Like I said, those are your people. You do what you've got to do."  When another officer, Robert Walker ("Walker"), asked Bochnak to clarify, Bochnak said "I'm not going to repeat myself.  You understood what I meant."  After transporting the detainees, Walker-Dabner cried at her locker and went home early.  

Later that month, Walker-Dabner reported the incident to a union steward who advised her to report it to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").  After several weeks passed, Walker-Dabner reported Bochnak's statements to Superintendent Scott Bratlien ("Bratlien").  After Bratlien told her to follow the chain of command, Bochnak reported the incident to Lieutenant Damita Delitz who indicated Bochnak would be spoken to.  A few days later, Walker-Dabner wrote a memo to several of the higher ups, complaining of Bochnak's conduct.  The next day, Bochnak apologized to Walker-Dabner for his comments being misunderstood as a racial or biased statement.  Bratlien instructed both Walker-Dabner and Bochnak that any type of harassment would not be tolerated.

Walker-Dabner proceeded to file a Discrimination/Harassment/Sexual Harassment Complaint Form with the Cook County Sheriff's Office of Professional Review ("OPR"), in regard to Bochnak's conduct.  However, the OPR found there was insufficient information to determine whether misconduct had been committed as there was no evidence to substantiate that Bochnak's statement was intended to be derogatory or discriminatory.  Consequently, Bochnak was not disciplined.

In October of 2014, Walker-Dabner filed a charge with the EEOC and alleged race and color discrimination.  After proceeding with suit against Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, in her second amended complaint, Walker-Dabner alleged racial harassment and harassment in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Act.  Dart proceeded to file summary judgment.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief only looks at the hostile work environment portion of Walker-Dabner's claim.)

Both Title VII and Section 1981 prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  As well, employers are prohibited from "requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment."  To prevail on a Title VII claim, a claimant must show:  1) she is a member of a class protected by statute; 2) that she has been the subject of some form of adverse employment action (or that she has been subjected to a hostile work environment); and 3) that the employer took this adverse action on account of the claimant's membership in the protected class.  As to the racially hostile work environment claim, a claimant must show:  1) that the work environment was both subjectively and objectively offensive; 2) that the harassment was based on membership in a protected class; 3) that the conduct was severe or pervasive; and 4) that there is a basis for employer liability.

In this instance, the District Court held that Walker-Dabner's claims failed, as she could not establish that she was subjected to severe or pervasive harassing conduct.  (It is worth noting that at her deposition in August 2016, Walker-Dabner alleged that about three months after the July of 2014 incident, Bochnak walked up to her in the parking lot and said "You're all black."  Walker-Dabner did not report the incident.)  Although a single instance of sufficiently severe conduct may be sufficient to establish an actionable claim, that did not occur in this case.  Walker-Dabner could not point the Court to any evidence which established the alleged comments were either physically threatening or humiliating conduct (as opposed to verbal abuse).

With that being said, the Court did acknowledge it was a closer call as to the objective offensiveness of Bochnak's comments and whether the complained of conduct unreasonably interfered with Walker-Dabner's work performance.  While the Court found Bochnak's comments to be unacceptable, Walker-Dabner's use of vacation time (when she left work early) did not establish that the behavior unreasonably interfered with her ability to do her job.  Further, a reasonable person would not find Bochnak's comments hostile or abusive.

Judgment:  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dart on the grounds that the claimant could not establish that two comments (although inappropriate) were sufficiently severe or pervasive, such that the comments did not amount to a hostile work environment claim.

The Takeaway:  At first blush, I think it is easy to find that Bochnak's comments could create a hostile work environment.  However, the difference between could and actually is significant here.  As the Court pointed out, Bochnak's comments could be deemed to be offensive.  However, offensive comments do not necessarily amount to a hostile work environment.  This case was no exception.  Had Walker-Dabner been able to produce additional instances of when Bochnak made inappropriate comments toward her or produced additional evidence that the comments unreasonably interfered with her ability to do her job, she might have been able to defeat summary judgment.  Unfortuantely for Walker-Dabner, she fell short of that burden.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Dow, Jr.

Date:  March 5, 2019

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/WalkerDart030519.pdf

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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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