Sanity prevails: Single remark can’t support a retaliation lawsuit
Sure seems like a lot of underperforming employees who get axed try to extract revenge by suing their former employers for some lame reason — retaliation seems to be the charge du jour. So it’s good to see a case where common sense trumps stupidity.
We refer to a recent appeals court decision out of Texas involving one Courtney Satterwhite, who worked in the City of Houston’s controller’s office.
Satterwhite and a co-worker, Harry Singh, were in a meeting when, Satterwhite claimed, Singh used the phrase “Heil Hitler.” (Singh claimed he said “You know, we’re not in Hitler court” — whatever that might mean.)
After the meeting, Satterwhite informed Singh that another city employee, Daniel Schein, was offended by Singh’s remarks.
Although Singh apologized to Schein and Schein declined to file a formal complaint, Satterwhite reported the incident to the deputy director of human resources, who reported it to the city’s chief deputy controller, Chris Brown. Brown verbally reprimanded Singh.
So. A minor workplace disagreement, disciplinary action taken, case closed, right? No way.
Retaliation charged
A few months later, Singh was promoted and now served as Satterwhite’s supervisor. Things did not go swimmingly.
Singh disciplined Satterwhite for a number of issues, including being absent from his desk for a long period of time and changing office procedures without notifying other employees. Satterwhite claimed he was being singled out for discipline because he had filed the “Heil Hitler” report with HR.
Eventually, Singh had enough. He recommended that, given Satterwhite’s disciplinary record, Satterwhite should be demoted. The city controller agreed, and Satterwhite was demoted two pay grades.
Satterwhite went to the EEOC and made a formal charge of unlawful retaliation. He then brought suit in federal court.
Two strikes, he’s out of luck
In the case’s first go-round, the federal district court ruled that the city had ample and reasonable grounds for demoting Satterwhite, so it was not retaliating for his report to HR.
But it’s the judge’s decision in appeals court that should warm the hearts of employers. Here it is, in relevant part:
No reasonable person would believe that the single “Heil Hitler” incident is actionable under Title VII. The Supreme Court has made clear that a court determines whether a work environment is hostile “by looking 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 nreasonably nterferes with an employee’s work performance.’” Furthermore, “isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)” do not amount to actionable conduct under Title VII.
Case cite: Satterwhite v. City of Houston.
