A 3-phase plan to get sued for retaliation?
This university’s treatment of a student won’t look good to a jury — especially since it may have retaliated against her on three separate occasions.
Egregious sexual harassment
Lauren Summa was a graduate student at Hofstra University when she was hired as the team manager for school’s football program for fall and spring seasons. (Summa’s boyfriend was a member of the team at the time.)
Almost as soon as she was hired, Summa was subjected to numerous instances of sexual harassment.
The harassment hit a peak on the last day of the season on the bus ride home from an away game. On the bus, an assistant coach put on the film “Shadowboxer,” which contained a number of sex scenes. During the film, one player made an inappropriate comment to Summa. Humiliated, embarrassed and upset, Summa began crying and asked the assistant coach to turn the movie off. When the movie was stopped, the players began yelling for it to be turned back on, chanting “we want boobies.”
Count up the retaliation claims
Once back at school, Summa reported the incident to the head coach, who urged her not to go to the school’s public safety department because it would bring unwanted attention to the football program. Summa reported the incident anyway.
Soon after, the team informed her it had found another team manager for the spring, despite the fact that Summa was hired for both fall and spring seasons. So Summa filed a retaliation lawsuit against the school. (This was retaliation lawsuit No. 1.)
Summa applied for a graduate assistantship position in the Office of University Relations and was offered the position. But after learning about the first retaliation lawsuit, the office took a second look at Summa. An official then said the Summa’s resume was imprecise and that she had overstate the importance of her duties at an internship. The office withdrew its offer of employment.
Summa then filed a second retaliation lawsuit against the school. (If you’re counting, that’s retaliation claim No. 2.)
To add insult to injury, the school eventually withdrew Summa’s privilege of student employment after it discovered that she had double-counted some of her hours.
This would have been a legitimate reason for action — except that the school’s HR director had never terminated anyone’s privilege of student employment and had never investigated any other student’s billing practices.
So — you guessed it — Summa filed her third and final retaliation lawsuit.
Coincidence? Likely not
A district court ruled in favor of Hofstra, but an appeals court denied summary judgment and sent the case to a jury.
Robyn Hagan Cain, writing on the Findlaw blog, had the upshot for employers:
Could all this be coincidence? Absolutely. But think about how it looks to a jury. An employee complains about harassment, and loses her job. She keeps getting jobs with the same employer, but she keeps losing those jobs after she files a retaliation complaint. Hofstra has a tough battle ahead if it decides to go to trial, even if it dismissed Summa for legitimate reasons.
The case is Summa v. Hofstra University.
Could all this be coincidence? Absolutely. But think about how it looks to a jury. An employee complains about harassment, and loses her job. She keeps getting jobs with the same employer, but she keeps losing those jobs after she files a retaliation complaint. Hofstra has a tough battle ahead if it decides to go to trial, even if it dismissed Summa for legitimate reasons.
Perception may be even more important than reality when defending an unlawful retaliation lawsuit, especially after it survives summary judgment.
- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2013/02/perception-v-reality-what-matters-more-in-a-retaliation-claim.html?DCMP=NWL-cons_humanresource#sthash.k19cC95k.dpuf
Could all this be coincidence? Absolutely. But think about how it looks to a jury. An employee complains about harassment, and loses her job. She keeps getting jobs with the same employer, but she keeps losing those jobs after she files a retaliation complaint. Hofstra has a tough battle ahead if it decides to go to trial, even if it dismissed Summa for legitimate reasons.
Perception may be even more important than reality when defending an unlawful retaliation lawsuit, especially after it survives summary judgment.
- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2013/02/perception-v-reality-what-matters-more-in-a-retaliation-claim.html?DCMP=NWL-cons_humanresource#sthash.k19cC95k.dpuf
Could all this be coincidence? Absolutely. But think about how it looks to a jury. An employee complains about harassment, and loses her job. She keeps getting jobs with the same employer, but she keeps losing those jobs after she files a retaliation complaint. Hofstra has a tough battle ahead if it decides to go to trial, even if it dismissed Summa for legitimate reasons.
Perception may be even more important than reality when defending an unlawful retaliation lawsuit, especially after it survives summary judgment.
- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2013/02/perception-v-reality-what-matters-more-in-a-retaliation-claim.html?DCMP=NWL-cons_humanresource#sthash.k19cC95k.dp
The post A 3-phase plan to get sued for retaliation? appeared first on HR Morning.
Resources
Post Your Resume to 65+ Job Sites
Resume Service
