Recently, the U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled on two sexual harassment and retaliation cases filed by former employees against Anne Arundel County and its former County Executive, John Leopold. These two cases are instructive as to what is necessary to prevail on a harassment claim and/or a retaliation claim. In the first case, Joan Harris v. John Leopold, Ms. Harris claimed that she was subject to a hostile environment based on sex and then retaliated against after she complained about the sexual harassment. Ms. Harris lost on the sexual harassment claim, because she could only establish that she worked in rude and offensive work environment, but not one that was particularly abusive toward female employees. In reaching this result, the Maryland federal court stated:
Turning to the instant case, Ms. Harris’s complaint provides somewhat vague example of rude and inappropriate behavior by Mr. Leopold toward her and other female employees. Among the incidents Ms. Harris alleges are several gender-neutral instances of Ms. Harris and other employees being forced to participate in campaign activities. Other incidents,
Leopold and other supervisors waiting for female employees to open doors for them or making comments about female employees’ attire, while arguably sexist, are not sufficiently serious to support a claim of hostile work environment. Perhaps the most substantial allegations Ms. Harris makes in support of her hostile work environment claim involve Mr. Leopold describing women in degrading terms, yet Ms. Harris fails to provide specific examples of such incidents or to indicate the frequency with which they occurred.
Taken as a whole, the conduct of which Ms. Harris complains, though inappropriate, appears to be more comparable to the kind of rude behavior and offhand comments that courts have held are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable sexual harassment. See, e.g., Hartsell v. Duplex Prod., Inc., 123 F.3d 766, 773 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that comments about a woman's looks and comments demeaning to women were not sufficiently severe or pervasive). Cf. Hoyle, 650 F.3d at 334, 327 (holding that evidence of sexually suggestive calendars in the company cafeteria and break room and a nude picture of a woman as the screensaver on a company computer was sufficient to generate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a work environment was severe or pervasive). While a work environment filled with ridicule, intimidation, and remarks that maliciously demean the status of women can be hostile and abusive, even where a woman is not explicitly subject to sexual advances or propositions, Smith v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 202 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 2000), Ms. Harris has failed to plead facts that establish this level of hostility. Thus, even accepting, as it must, all of Ms. Harris’s allegations as true, the court cannot conclude that the incidents alleged are sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to state a plausible claim of hostile work environment under Fourth Circuit law.However, Ms. Harris was able to plead sufficient facts to allow her retaliation claim to go forward because she could establish that there was a possible causal connection between her supporting another employee’s complaint of discrimination and her resulting termination. On this claim, the Maryland federal court held:
Ms. Harris has pled facts sufficient to show that the defendants fired her because they believed, correctly, that she assisted with Ms. Hamner’s discrimination suit against Mr. Leopold. On September 30, 2010, shortly after Ms. Harris provided Ms. Hamner’s counsel with information in support of Ms. Hamner’s suit, Ms. Hamner filed an amended complaint against Mr. Leopold. After the amended complaint was filed, Mr. Leopold, Mr. Callahan, and Mr. Robey gave Ms. Harris fewer and fewer assignments, excluded her from meetings, and ignored her at public events. On November 3, 2010, the day after Mr. Leopold was reelected and a mere four weeks after the filing of Ms. Hamner’s amended complaint, Ms. Harris was fired. Given all the circumstances, including the proximity of Ms. Harris’s termination to her protected activity, Ms. Harris’s complaint sets forth a plausible claim of retaliation even though her support for Ms. Hamner did not become public until the affidavit was filed November 19, 2010. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Harris’s retaliation claim will be denied.
The second case, Karla Hamner v. Anne Arundel County, involved Ms. Hamner, the employee whom Ms. Harris supported with respect to Ms. Hamner’s claim of gender discrimination and unlawful sexual harassment. Ms. Hamner, based on the facts of her case was able, like Ms. Harris, to establish a claim for retaliation based on the deposition of three police officers whom heard retaliatory statements made by former County Executive Leopold. The former County executive told the officers to get rid of Ms. Hamner after she reported that she was sexually harassed by him. Ms. Hamner was also allowed to proceed with her hostile environment sexual harassment claim, based on her non-selection for a position. These two cases illustrate that is critically important for any employee who believes that he or she is being harassed to timely report the harassment (and better yet, to complain in writing). Even if the harassment claim fails due to the high level of harassment required, the employee can still prevail on a retaliation claim.
