Skip to main content

Rumor Has It: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Consider Whether Spreading a False Rumor Can Create a Hostile Work Environment


At the start of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc., a February 2019 case that found that the spreading of a false rumor that a female employee slept her way to a promotion could give rise to a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the case, Evangeline Parker ("Parker") claimed that she was discriminated against on the grounds that her employer allowed a hostile work environment to exist when it allowed a false rumor to spread that Parker got a promotion because she slept with a supervisor.  The facts in the record established that the employer knew of the rumor (originated by some co-workers of Parker), with one of the managers even excluding from a meeting in which the rumor was discussed.  As well, the manager went on to tell Parker that she could no longer be recommended for promotions or higher level tasks because of the rumor.  After getting two warnings for apparent employment related conduct,

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Parker had stated a viable Title VII claim against her former employer.  Agreeing with precedent from the Third and Sixth Circuits, the Fourth Circuit held that rumors that relate to sexual conduct are based on sex (and therefore actionable under Title VII.)  However, this opinion was noteworthy in so much that it further established a split among the circuits with the Second, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits having gone the opposite direction, finding that these rumors are based on conduct, rather than sex (and therefore not actionable under Title VII.)

The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently followed the Fourth Circuit's decision.  I am somewhat surprised by the Supreme Court declining to take the case on appeal, as the Court's ruling on the matter would have resolved a growing split among Circuits.  While we could speculate that the Court is not interested in clarifying the matter at this time, does not think this case has the "proper" facts to resolve the split, etc., etc., for the time being, the Fourth Circuit's decision stands.


For additional information:  https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-will-not-disturb-ruling-false-rumor-about-sleeping-your-way-to?amp

For additional information from the U.S. Supreme Court:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1442.html

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