 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Harassment suit doesn't meet court testCompiled from Times wires © St. Petersburg Times, published April 24, 2001 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that because the federal law against sex discrimination in the workplace does not extend to isolated incidents of teasing or sexual innuendo, it also does not shelter employees who complain about such incidents from retaliation by their employers. The unanimous unsigned opinion made little new law, instead elaborating on recent decisions concerning sexual harassment, which the court regards as an aspect of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was an appeal by the public school system of Clark County, Nev., which includes Las Vegas. At issue was a provision of Title VII that explicitly protects employees from retaliation if they have complained about or otherwise opposed "any practice made an unlawful employment practice" under other provisions of the law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Nevada, has found that this protection extends to employees who have a "reasonable, good faith belief" that their rights were violated, even if that was not actually the case. Applying that standard, the 9th Circuit ruled last year that a female administrator in the Clark County school district could pursue a retaliation lawsuit growing out of an offensive exchange between two male co-workers, one her supervisor and the other a subordinate, in her presence. Although the incident itself "would not support a claim of a hostile work environment, or indeed any other violation of Title VII," Shirley A. Breeden's belief that she had been the target of sexual harassment was "objectively reasonable," the 9th Circuit court said. Under the Supreme Court's precedents, sexual harassment is actionable only if it is "so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment," as the court phrased it most recently in a 1998 decision. In their opinion Monday, the justices said "no reasonable person could have believed" that the fleetingly suggestive remark made in Breeden's presence met that test. The U.S. District Court in Las Vegas acted correctly in dismissing the suit and the 9th Circuit improperly reinstated it, the court said. Further criticizing the appeals court's decision, the justices said that regardless of how the incident was characterized, there was no evidence that Breeden's complaints caused the school district to punish or retaliate against her. To prove retaliation, it was essential to show causation, the opinion said. The court's opinion, Clark County School District vs. Breeden, was signed only "Per Curiam," meaning "by the court," a designation used to resolve a case that seems so clear to the court that the justices did not want to go to the trouble of sitting for an argument and producing a formal opinion. The court also: Heard arguments in a case testing whether federal law limits the damages that victims of job discrimination can collect to make up for lost future earnings. Agreed to decide whether some companies can be required to pay lifetime health benefits promised to retired coal miners, even if the company the miners worked for is no longer in business. Turned down an appeal from suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian, who wanted to revive his libel suit against medical groups that called him a criminal and a "reckless instrument of death." Turned down an appeal testing whether local governments must allow volunteer rescuers to stand in for government employees.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
