In Mattson v. Caterpillar, Inc., No. 03-2495 (3/4/04), the Seventh Circuit held that summary judgment was properly granted for the employer on a claim that an employee was terminated in retaliation for filing an EEOC sexual harassment charge based on conduct of a co-worker.
The charge was objectively and subjectively unreasonable; the plaintiff had conceded the alleged touching may have been inadvertent and he did not believe it was based on sexual attraction. Moreover, a witness gave an affidavit that the touching did not occur as claimed and that the employee had a malicious motive for wanting to get the alleged harasser in trouble.
Certainly one lesson is that the retaliation provisions of Title VII do not protect employees who file unreasonable charges in bad faith.
But for most employers trying to deal in a practical manner with discrimination charges, this case is really the exception that proves the rule.
The rule that’s more important to bear in mind is that a charge is protected even if it proves unfounded, as long as it is made in good faith with some reasonable belief in its validity. The type of evidence of malice and lack of reasonableness that was present here is highly unusual.
Was this employer better off paying the price of litigating this all the way to the Seventh Circuit and being rid of the employee or would it have been better served just to concentrate on beating the frivolous charge and leaving it at that?
In hindsight, perhaps it was worth it, given the successful outcome. But what about the risk of losing on retaliation, so even though the employer would not be liable for the underlying charge, it would be liable for backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees (plus its own fees)?
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by Email
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment