Evans v. International Paper Company - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Facts: Deanna Evans ("Evans") began working for International Paper Company ("IPC") in 2007 as a process engineer. Throughout the following years, Evans received promotions and strong performance reviews. However, Evans apparently experienced problems while at IPC that she attributed to her race, African American, and gender. Of note, Evans claimed that after she received a transfer, she heard two employees say that they did not want her there and were forced to take her. After returning from maternity leave, Evans was told by her supervisor at the time, Gary Nyman ("Nyman"), that white, male employees had said they thought they had run her off. Nyman was also alleged to have criticized Evans and her management skills and yelled at her on several occasions.
On another occasion, a white, male employee said during a meeting that Evans was at that another African American female employee acted like she was "from a shoot em up, bang bang neighborhood." After Evans complained to Nyman about the comment, nothing was apparently done. A few years later, a white co-worker told Evans that her natural hairstyle was unprofessional and nicknamed her Angela Davis (after the civil rights and Black Panther activist.) There were other occasions in the record that several racially inappropriate comments were made to other IPC employees.
In early 2015, Evans submitted her letter of resignation and noted that while her time at IPC had been satisfying and productive, there had been challenges (as noted above.) During her exit interview, Evans discussed the comments about her hair and Angela Davis as well as the work environment toward African American females.
Evans subsequently filed suit against IPC and alleged race and gender discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of IPC as to all claims asserted by Evans. Evans subsequently appealed.
Holding: At the outset, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the claim asserted by Evans was actually a hostile work environment constructive discharge claim. To establish the validity of such a claim, a claimant must show the requirements of both a hostile work environment and a constructive discharge claim.
Hostile Work Environment
To establish a valid hostile work environment claim, a claimant must show: 1) she experienced unwelcome harassment; 2) the harassment was based on her gender or race; 3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and 4) there is some basis for imposing liability on the employer.
As readers might be aware, the severe or pervasive element has both a subjective and objective component. In order to prevail, it must be shown that Evans perceived, and a reasonable person would perceive, the environment as abusive or hostile. Of course, a court will look at all the circumstances, including "the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance."
Constructive Discharge
To establish a valid constructive discharge claim, a claimant must show "something more" than the showing required for a hostile work environment claim. In order to do so, a claimant must show "that [s]he was discriminated against by h[er] employer to the point where a reasonable person in h[er] position would have felt compelled to resign" and that she actually resigned. Of note, "unless conditions are beyond 'ordinary' discrimination, a complaining employee is expected to remain on the job while seeking redress." As well, difficult or unpleasant working conditions, without more, are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.
In this instance, the Court was not shy in reiterating that a claimant that asserts a combined hostile work environment claim must establish that her working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would have been compelled to resign. Based upon the facts in the record, the Court reasoned that Evans had not met her burden. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to Evans, while some conditions she experienced might have been unpleasant and frustrating, from an objective perspective, it could not be found that she had no other option but to resign. In fact, in her resignation letter, Evans wrote that her time at IPC had been "on the whole, satisfying and productive." She went on to call her time at IPC as a "great experience."
Judgment: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that while the employee might have been confronted with unpleasant situations at her job, the conditions did not rise to such a level that a reasonable person would have no other choice but to resign.
The Takeaway: I chose to highlight this case for readers for a few reasons, although the paramount reason was the Court's reliance, in part, upon the resignation letter from Evans to justify finding that no valid hostile work environment claim existed. Note how the Court recognized that by her own "admission" (in so much as it was her resignation letter), she had complimentary statements to make about her job and employer. While that did not necessarily doom the viability of her claim, it certainly gave the Court another reason to point out why summary judgment in favor of the employer was appropriate.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Quattlebaum
Date: August 27, 2019
Opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4758507140114027538&q=evans+v+international+paper&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31&as_ylo=2019
Comments
Post a Comment