Dive Brief:
- An Illinois nursing home operator failed to secure summary judgment in a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation against a former employee who was sexually harassed by a supervisor, according to a federal judge’s decision on Wednesday.
- EEOC sued Helia Healthcare of Salem in 2024, claiming that a supervisor inappropriately slapped and attempted to kiss the plaintiff. The judge held that a jury could find the alleged conduct to be sufficiently invasive, humiliating and threatening to constitute a hostile work environment. The judge also found that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether a reduction in the employee’s hours and her subsequent firing were retaliatory.
- The judge similarly allowed EEOC’s failure-to-accommodate and constructive discharge claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act to move forward, holding that the employee had a physical impairment that could have limited her work availability. Helia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
The decision demonstrates the heightened scrutiny courts may deploy in employment discrimination lawsuits involving misconduct by a direct supervisor.
In this case, the judge noted that harassment by a supervisor “is more likely to be severe,” citing language from a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision, and noted that the harasser’s authority over the employee combined with her short tenure at Helia could lead a jury to reasonably find that a hostile work environment existed.
Under federal antidiscrimination laws like Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers are automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action, according to EEOC guidance. Employers may only avoid liability in such scenarios if they can show that they reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the behavior and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective action by the employer.
EEOC alleged that Helia management had been notified of both the alleged harassment incidents but did not take action. Per the court, Helia argued that it terminated the employee because she allegedly left work in the middle of her shift rather than because of her harassment report. The judge found that the dispute between the parties on this point would be appropriate for jury determination.
A similar dispute emerged regarding EEOC’s ADA claims. According to the decision, the employee initially sought Family and Medical Leave Act leave to receive ankle surgery, but she was ineligible for FMLA due to her length of tenure.
But a jury could find that the employee was qualified under the ADA and that Helia failed to accommodate her, the judge held. Similarly, a jury could find that the employee found her working conditions to be intolerable and saw her termination as imminent if she were to move forward with ankle surgery, thereby showing constructive discharge under the ADA, according to the court.