Employees that report discrimination or are supportive of others who report discrimination can sometimes find themselves facing the "cold shoulder" from their supervisors. Supervisors' conduct toward employees fired in retaliation for complaining of discriminatory treatment supported jury findings of retaliation the Sixth Circuit ruled in two recent cases, Fischer v. UPS, No. 08-1600 (July 27, 2010), and Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, No. 08-3110 (July 27, 2010).
In Fischer, the court recited the following evidence regarding the plaintiff's treatment by his supervisor, Jarlett:
After he returned to duty, however, Fischer testified that from his first day back on the job, Jarlett’s treatment of him differed noticeably. He described his post-return interactions with her as “cold” and “distant,” and their communication as deteriorating to “terrible” and “almost nonexistent.” Jarlett ignored Fischer’s presence in the office, even though she remained cordial with the other NAMs. Two of Fischer’s co-workers corroborated his characterization of Jarlett’s changed attitude. And Jarlett singled Fischer out for heightened scrutiny from the first day of his return, when she emailed higher-ups about Fischer’s traffic-induced late arrival, precisely tracking his tardiness down to the minute. Jarlett also restricted Fischer exclusively to the office for several months and demanded to know his whereabouts at all times—negative treatment none of the other NAMs under her supervision experienced.
Similarly, the court recounted such "cold shoulder" treatment of the employee in Spengler by his supervisor, Hoffman:
After speaking with Plaintiff, Hoffman approached Huggins about Plaintiff’s age discrimination concerns. Thereafter, according to Plaintiff, Huggins’ attitude toward him changed. Specifically, Plaintiff stated that Huggins kept his distance and refused to make eye contact with Plaintiff. On February 9, 2005, Huggins called Plaintiff into his office and terminated his employment, telling Plaintiff that he was being fired because of negative comments from Plaintiff’s co-workers about his attitude and interpersonal skills. Plaintiff asked about the transfer to the Steel Division, to which Huggins replied that Plaintiff would not be recommended for a Steel Division position. Huggins also informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff would not be rehired in the future.
