Must Sexual Harassment Victims Work With The Harasser While An Investigation Is On-Going?
For more than twenty years, our sexual harassment lawyers in Citrus County, Florida have fought for the rights of sexual harassment victims. Through their decades of experience representing sexual harassment victims, our sexual harassment attorneys in Inverness, Florida know that many sexual harassment victims request not to work with the harasser while an investigation is being conducted into their sexual harassment complaint. In far too many cases, employers refuse to accommodate the request of sexual harassment victims not to work alongside the person they are accusing of sexual harassment and require sexual harassment victims to continue working with the harasser while their sexual harassment complaint is being investigated. In this article, our sexual harassment attorneys in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in Schroeder v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.,Case No. 08-cv-13250 (E.D. Mich. 2009) demonstrates that the remedial obligation of employers to protect employees from sexual harassment in the workplace includes accommodating the request of sexual harassment victims not to work alongside the person they accused of sexual harassment while an investigation into their sexual harassment complaint is on-going.
Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
In that case, a woman named Schroeder brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against her former employer, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (“Cracker Barrel”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII protects employees from sexual harassment in the workplace. To violate Title VII, sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create a hostile working environment. Schroeder claims that, during her employment with Cracker Barrel, she was sexually harassed in violation of Title VII.
In 2006, Schroeder began working for Cracker Barrel as a server at a Cracker Barrel restaurant. From September 2007 through December 2007, Schroeder alleges that she was sexually harassed by the restaurant’s Associate Manager, Schlender. Schroeder claims that Schlender’s unwanted sexually harassing behavior towards her included sexual advances, sexual remarks, sexual innuendo, and physical touching. On August 21, 2007, Schroeder lodged a sexual harassment complaint against Schlender. On August 23, 2007, Cracker Barrel began an investigation into Schroeder’s sexual harassment complaint.
In late August 2007, while the investigation was on-going, Schroeder asked the restaurant’s General Manager, Gordon, if he could arrange it so she did not have to work the same shift as Schlender, explaining that it made her uncomfortable in light of the circumstances. Gordon had allowed Schlender to continue supervising Schroeder. Schroeder’s request was denied. Gordon does not recall refusing to do so, but testified that he would have denied any such request because it would show bias or discrimination against Schlender.
On September 2, 2007, Schroeder went into work and told Gordon that she needed to speak with him. She told him that she could not work at Cracker Barrel any more, reminded him that she had told him earlier that she could not work with Schlender because of the way he treats her, and handed Gordon an envelope with her resignation.
On December 10, 2007, Schlender received a verbal counseling. The verbal counseling document states that “allegations were brought forth that your behavior in the workplace could be perceived as inappropriate or unprofessional in nature. A thorough investigation was conducted and these claims could not be fully substantiated.” Schlender resigned from Cracker Barrel in February 2008.
Must Grant Victim’s Request
Cracker Barrell filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Schroeder’s sexual harassment claim. In moving for dismissal, Cracker Barrel argued that it was not liable for any sexual harassment Schroeder experienced because it took prompt and effective remedial action by investigating her sexual harassment complaint and disciplining Schlender. The trial court disagreed and denied Cracker’s Barrel’s motion for dismissal.
In denying Cracker Barrel’s motion for dismissal, the trial court explained that an “employer’s notice of the sexually harassing conduct triggers its duty to take prompt corrective action that is reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” “This [remedial] obligation,” the court pointed out, “actually has two parts.” “The first part consists of the temporary steps the employer takes to deal with the situation while it determines whether the complaint is justified.” “The second consists of the permanent remedial steps the employer takes once it has completed its investigation.” “At issue here,” the trial court determined, “is whether [Cracker Barrel] failed to take the necessary temporary steps required while its investigation was on-going, i.e., its failure to grant [Schroeder’s] request that she not be required to work the same shift with Schlender.”
In applying these principles, the trial court observed that “after filing a complaint against Schlender, [Schroeder] requested that [Cracker Barrel] accommodate her request not to work alongside the man she was accusing of sexual harassment.” Despite her request, the trial court noted, “Schlender was allowed to continue as [Schroeder’s] supervisor during the investigation.” Indeed, Schroeder testified that she asked “Gordon, while the investigation was ongoing, whether he could arrange it so she did not have to work the same shift as Schlender, but he denied her request.” Although Gordon “does not recall refusing [Schroeder’s] request, he testified that he would have denied it because he would not want to show any bias or discrimination against Schlender until the investigation was completed.” In denying Schroeder’s accommodation request, the trial court concluded that Cracker Barrel failed to take the necessary temporary remedial steps to protect Schroeder while its investigation was on-going.
Citrus County Sexual Harassment Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our sexual harassment attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have litigated sexual harassment cases in Florida courts for more than two decades. If you have been sexually harassed at work or have questions about an employer’s obligation to protect you from sexual harassment in the workplace, please contact our office for a free consultation with our sexual harassment lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes sexual harassment cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.