Supervisor's retaliatory harassment is actionable under Title VII

Law Reporter, Jun 2000

Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Ct., 201 EM 784 (6th Cir. 2000).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer can be held liable for a supervisor's retaliatory harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.

Here, Morris, a county employee, informed a judge that her supervisor had commented on her attire and propositioned her. After the judge transferred the supervisor to another office, he allegedly telephoned Morris, visited her at her office several times, made faces at her, and threw nails on her driveway.

Morris sued the judge, the supervisor, and the county, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, among other claims. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs retaliation claim was without merit because she had not been subjected to any adverse employment action by defendants.

Reversing, the Sixth Circuit noted that a term appearing in several places in a statutory text is generally read the same way each time it appears. Addressing an issue of first impression, the court noted that in Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), 41 ATLA L. Rep. 214 (Aug. 1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998), 41 ATLA L. Rep. 215 (Aug. 1998), the U.S. Supreme Court held that severe or pervasive sexual harassment by a supervisor based on an individual's sex can constitute discrimination under the provision of Title VII barring employment discrimination based on sex. It follows, the court reasoned, that severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment by a supervisor can also constitute discrimination under the provision of Title VII barring employment discrimination based on an individual's opposition to unlawful employment practices.

The court noted that in Faragher, the U.S. Supreme Court held that harassment is not severe or pervasive enough to trigger liability under Title VII if it consists merely of simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Applying this standard here, the court found the alleged behavior of the supervisor constitutes more than simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents.

Accordingly, the court remanded. Plaintiffs Counsel

Kenneth S. Handmaker, Louisville, Ky. Kyle P. Williams, Jefferson, Ind.