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,...
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