Dive Brief:
- A former employee of a Virginia wine wholesaler may proceed with her quid pro quo sexual harassment claims against the business’ owner who, she alleged, pressured her to continue a sexual relationship with him in order to keep her job, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Aug. 6.
- The plaintiff in Nixon v. Kysela Pere Et Fils, Ltd. “separated and reconciled more than 20 times” with the owner and had worked for him on several occasions. Prior to the beginning of her final employment stint, however, the plaintiff alleged that she did not wish to be in a sexual relationship and resisted the owner’s requests for sex. She claimed she was fired for doing so in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
- A district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the employee failed to establish that the owner made unwelcome advancements toward her after their relationship ended. The 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the case, finding that a material issue of fact did exist as to whether the plaintiff and the business owner had ended their relationship prior to the alleged harassment.
Dive Insight:
In its most recent Title VII harassment guidance issued last April, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stated that employers are liable when they make an explicit change to a term, condition or privilege of employment linked to harassment based on a protected characteristic. This form of harassment is sometimes described as quid pro quo harassment, according to EEOC.
The owner in Nixon alleged that he fired the plaintiff “because he was ‘unhappy with her work performance,’ which would be a valid reason for early termination” under the terms of their employment agreement, the 4th Circuit said. However, the court ultimately found evidence supporting both sides’ arguments.
“If this case came to us after a bench trial, our conclusion might be different. But while this is a close case, there is a genuine dispute of material fact over when the relationship ended,” the court said. “This disputed issue bars summary judgment, as a reasonable jury could determine that [the plaintiff] was fired because of her rejection of [the owner’s] unwanted sexual advances.”
Even consensual workplace romantic relationships can present compliance headaches for HR departments, particularly when one partner is subordinate to another. Some employers explicitly ban relationships between supervisors and their direct reports, and violations of such policies can make headlines.
In 2019, for example, McDonald’s fired former CEO Steve Easterbrook after a company investigation found that he engaged in a consensual relationship with an employee in violation of company policy. One year earlier, Intel similarly dismissed former CEO Brian Krzanich following an investigation into a consensual relationship with an employee, according to Reuters.