Friday, March 03, 2017

"Working like a Hebrew slave" is a wrong expression

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a term Workers’ Compensation Claims Examiner …. Complainant and [Supervisor S1 had] exchanged emails about Complainant’s work hours and schedule. During the exchange, Complainant stated that government employees generally work shorter hours than private sector employees, and she was “working like a civilian.” In response, S1 stated the following:

Wow … then I must be a damn fool … cause I’ve been working like a Hebrew slave the last 9 years and don’t have enough time to take off … at least somebody got it right.

S1 testified that during the relevant time period, he was aware that Complainant is Jewish because she requested leave for religious purposes, but he used the term “Hebrew slave” in his email to her because this was a “common term that’s used to reflect individuals who work with little means to produce great things.” He further testified that he understood that the [term] related to the trials Jewish people endured while in bondage in Egypt, as recounted in the Bible. The Agency maintains that S1’s comment was not severe enough to constitute harassment because he applied the term to himself, instead of to Complainant.

[Sentence moved:] [I]n evaluating whether the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, the harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances….

Upon review of this matter, we note that the Commission has found that under certain circumstances a single or limited number of epithets or slurs may constitute harassment under Title VII. In this case, S1 made the comment in an email to Complainant, and S1 knew that Complainant is Jewish. Although S1 only made such a comment once, the comment packed a painful, potent punch. Specifically, S1’s comment made light of the long and painful history of Jewish persecution and genocide.

The fact that S1 may have intended his comment to be a joke or a cliché does not soften the offense any more here than it would if he had uttered an equally offensive racial slur. We determine that a reasonable person in Complainant’s circumstances would find that S1’s comment was severe enough to create a hostile work environment based on her religion. Thus, we find that the AJ properly found that Complainant was subjected to religious harassment….

Our finding that Complainant was subjected to religious harassment, coupled with Complainant’s testimony that she was negatively impacted by S1’s conduct, persuades us that the AJ’s award of $10,000 is supported by substantial evidence…. [We also] find that the AJ’s award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,980 is supported by substantial evidence.

There was no finding of any tangible discrimination, or any other offensive statements, or any real anti-Semitism; the religious harassment finding (and the $20,000) bill was based solely on this one statement.

I should note that hostile environment harassment claims aren’t always (or even usually) this easy to win — there are court cases rejecting harassment claims based on more and worse incidents. But with standards as vague as “severe,” “pervasive,” “hostile work environment,” and “reasonable person in Complainant’s circumstances,” the results will naturally vary. And reasonably cautious employers will thus feel pressured by the law to restrict a vast range of employee speech, for fear that the judge in their case will read the standard in the more plaintiff-friendly way.



Bird of Paradise said...

P.C. Poppycock strikes again why dont we start refering to liberal whiners and stupid and rediculous

Anonymous said...

I guess it comes down to who is selected to review the case and their personal opinions. I don't find the supervisors comments offensive but merely a comment that others aren't required to work as hard as the supervisor. It is a public service environment and getting any public servant to put in one minute of overtime is a violation. It is time that the public servant snowflakes were introduced to the real world. Here is your days work, work as hard or as slow as you like but I needs to be finished before the end of your working day. Talk about a protected species.

Anonymous said...

This is the fault of progressive judges who legislate from the bench. Even in the case of jury trials the judges instructions are key to the jury's findings. I am sure the supervisor will just pay up since it would cost more than the judgment to appeal but this could well be reversed on appeal since one statement cannot constitute evidence of any of the charges to a truly reasonable person.