In order for behavior in the workplace to constitute harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other employment laws, the offensive conduct must be pervasive or severe enough to cause a hostile work environment for the victim. In order to determine whether a work environment is, in fact, hostile, a court will use both objective and subjective standards. For instance, objectively, a reasonable person would also find the work environment to be hostile and subjectively, the actual victim believed the environment was hostile under the circumstances. Because of the court uses both standards to determine a hostile work environment, it has become increasingly difficult to prove that behavior rises to the level of actual harassment.
Recently, a public school building service worker brought a case alleging employer harassment based on her disability, which is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In this case, Patricia Teasdell injured her knee on the job in June of 2011. She received a doctor’s note stating she could not perform regular work and required regular physical therapy. A few months later, Teasdell filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming she had suffered disability discrimination at her place of work. Among her allegations, Teasdell stated:
-Her supervisors wrongfully disciplined her for being late to work when they knew she had physical therapy appointments.
-She was continually subjected to workplace intimidation, harassment, and scare tactics because of her injury that made her employment hazardous to her health and wellbeing.
-Her supervisor took her photograph without her permission while she was cleaning to try to prove she could work at full capacity despite her injury.
-Another supervisor instructed her to climb a ladder to change light bulbs and, after Teasdell expressed concern about climbing the ladder with her injury, the supervisor threatened to fire her if she did not comply. Teasdell fell when descending the ladder and re-injured herself.
The school district argued that these events did not “remotely approach the severity or pervasiveness” required to find a hostile work environment. The court did agree that the discipline for her lateness, despite the reason for her lateness, was in line with usual school policies and therefore was not harassment. However, the court found that taking her picture without her permission and forcing her to climb a ladder both created a hostile environment. Not only did her supervisor know that climbing the ladder would be risky and dangerous for an injured employee, but used the threat of termination to induce her to climb the ladder even though she was afraid. This, the court decided, was severe harassment. Because these events could be seen as both objectively and subjectively humiliating, Teasdell had a basis for a hostile work environment claim.
If you have suffered harassment at work for any reason, contact the employment lawyers at HKM as soon as possible for a consultation.
