A doctor employed at a medical clinic could show that she was subjected to sexual harassment and hostile work environment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in EEOC v. Fairbrook Medical Clinic, No. 09-1610 (June 18, 2010). Characterizing the facts as indicating "a series of graphic remarks of a highly personal nature directed at a female employee by the sole owner of an establishment," the court reversed a summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
The case highlights and illustrates a number of common arguments raised by employers in sexual harassment cases including the following:
- The clinic claimed that there was no discrimination based on sex because the doctor owner "was a generally crude person who made vulgar comments to men and women alike." The court rejected this argument and noted that "the use of "sex-specific and derogatory terms" indicates intent to demean and discriminate against women."
- The clinic had a relaxed and at times crude work environment in which employees including plaintiff made off-color jokes and this precludes any finding of a hostile work environment. The court rejected this argument stating that "there is a difference between "generalized" statements that pollute the work environment and "personal gender-based remarks" that single out individuals for ridicule."
- The doctor cannot claim that a hostile work environment existed because she occasionally made off-color remarks herself. The court answered: "a plaintiff's claim is not defeated solely because she engages in some crude behavior. ... Plaintiff's use of foul language or sexual innuendo in a consensual setting does not waive her legal protections against unwelcome harassment."
- There was no hostile work environment because the doctor did not have to miss any work and her job performance was not impaired.The court answered: "The fact that a plaintiff continued to work under difficult circumstances is to her credit, not the harasser's. ... The critical inquiry is not whether work has been impaired, but whether working conditions have been discriminatorily altered."
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com