Harassment Investigations and Stereotyping
When an allegation of harassment arises in the workplace, it is critical for an employer to investigate promptly and thoroughly and, where appropriate, take effective corrective action. However, in light of a recent decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, employers need to be careful not to act precipitously or based on stereotypes.
Case Synopsis:
In Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307 (2nd Cir. 2009), Carl Sassaman was employed as a county elections specialist. Sassaman and Michelle Brant, a fellow employee, had had an amiable working relationship. The relationship, however, deteriorated when Brant registered a written complaint with her and Sassaman’s supervisor, David Gamache, stating that Sassaman had harassed and stalked her. Gamache did not conduct an investigation or refer the matter to someone else within the organization to conduct one. Instead, he advised local authorities of Brant’s complaint. The authorities interviewed Sassaman and Brant. Sassaman claimed he did not harass Brant, and there was a lack of evidence to support any charges against Sassaman.
While the investigation was ongoing, Gamache met with Sassaman a few times, as well as with Sassaman’s attorney. Gamache told Sassaman to resign; otherwise he was going to terminate Sassaman’s employment. According to Sassaman, Gamache defended his request by stating, “I really don’t have any choice. Michelle [Brant] knows a lot of attorneys; I’m afraid she’ll sue me. And besides you probably did what she said you did because you’re male and nobody would believe you anyway.” (Emphasis added.) Shortly thereafter, Sassaman resigned.
Sassaman sued Gamache and the County claiming that he was constructively discharged contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, noting that Sassaman had failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination because he had not identified evidence sufficient to support an inference of discrimination. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. It held that the following evidence would permit a reasonable jury to infer discrimination based on sex stereotyping: (1) Gamache’s statement indicating that men have a propensity to commit sexual harassment, and (2) defendants’ arguable failure to properly investigate the charges of sexual harassment lodged against Sassaman.
The Court of Appeals cited with approval the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, where a female manager had been inappropriately stereotyped as too aggressive and, as a result, denied partnership. The Court of Appeals also observed that apprehension about a lawsuit was no reason to rely on sex stereotyping.
The Sassaman case underscores how important it is for employers to conduct an impartial investigation when harassment allegations are made. In addition, the case illustrates how, even in the face of harassment allegations, making and articulating stereotypical assumptions about how a particular gender behaves are inadvisable and can be costly to an employer.
Jon Vegosen is a founding member of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd. and has more than 32 years experience practicing law. He is nationally recognized for his work in labor and employment relations and is sought after as an author and spokesperson on labor and employment issues.
Tags: employment law, Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd, Harassment, Jon Vegosen, legal update, Sassaman v. Gamache, Stereotyping
Leave a Reply