September 2022 - Parks & Recreation - 34

LAW REVIEW
in the Parks Department. Plaintiff
expressed to Odom, many times,
her concern about the pattern of
retaliation, harassment and hostile
work environment she felt she was
being forced to endure, including
the fact that she had to report to
Odom.
In early January 2017, Lynch
transferred Plaintiff's assistant of
14 years to another division without
consulting or notifying Plaintiff
beforehand. Neither Plaintiff nor
her assistant was provided with an
explanation for the move. Odom,
however,
said she supported
the
move and had planned to move this
assistant once Lynch retired and she
became director of the department.
Later that month, Plaintiff filed a
complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), arguing that she had been
subjected to harassment and intimidation
after filing a sex discrimination
complaint with HR. A little
more than five months later, on July
2, 2017, Plaintiff voluntarily retired.
Procedural History
In April 2017, Plaintiff initiated her
lawsuit in federal district court, alleging
retaliation under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act. Defendant subsequently
moved for summary judgment
on all of Plaintiff's claims.
Summary judgment for Defendant,
effectively dismissing Plaintiff's
lawsuit, would be appropriate
only if Defendant could show
there was " no genuine dispute as
to any material fact " and Defendant
was, therefore,
turn a verdict for the nonmoving
party, " in this case, Plaintiff.
Initially, the federal district court
ruled Plaintiff's retaliation claims
based on acts that occurred before
March 31, 2016, were timebarred
because Title VII required
an EEOC complaint to be filed
" within 300 days after the alleged
employment practice occurred. " 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
In addition, the court ruled each
of the three discrete acts that occurred
after March 31, 2016, were
" not
retaliatory, " including:
the
April 2016 placement of Plaintiff
under Odom's supervision,
Lynch's September 2016 written
reprimand, and the January 2017
transfer of Plaintiff's assistant.
The federal appeals court, however,
reversed the summary judgment
based on Plaintiff's hostile workplace
theory, which was
characterized
as a retaliatory harassment claim
and remanded Plaintiff's retaliatory
harassment claim back to the federal
district court. On remand, the
federal district court would have to
" determine whether the conduct of
Plaintiff's employer, in a cumulative
assessment, would have dissuaded a
reasonable employee from making a
charge of discrimination. "
" entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. " Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute
about a material fact would
exist when " the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could reFour
Factors for Retaliation
According to the federal district
court, Plaintiff would have to
demonstrate the following four factors
cited in the Supreme Court's
" McDonnell Douglas framework "
to establish a " prima facie " (i.e., legally
sufficient) claim of retaliation:
(1) Plaintiff was engaged in a
protected activity; (2) the exercise
of protected rights was known to
the employer; (3) the employer
took an adverse employment ac34
Parks & Recreation | SEP T EMBER 2 0 22 | PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
tion against Plaintiff; and (4) there
was a causal connection between
the adverse employment action
and the protected activity.
On appeal, Defendant conceded
the first two McDonnell Douglas
factors are satisfied because
" Plaintiff's June 2013 gender discrimination
complaint constitutes
a protected activity about which
it knew. " Defendant, however, argued
" the third and fourth McDonnell
Douglas factors are not met
because Plaintiff has not shown a
harassing environment that is causally
related to her June 2013 gender
discrimination complaint. "
Adverse Employment
Action
As described by the federal district
court,
an
conduct
adverse
that
employment
action in the retaliation context
is
" might
discrimination. "
have
dissuaded a reasonable worker
from making or supporting a charge
of
in
determining whether
Moreover,
Plaintiff
was subjected to a hostile work
environment, the court would assess
" the cumulative effect of Defendant's
actions as if they constitute one
unlawful employment practice. " In
so doing, the court would consider
more than just employment-related
conduct because a charge under 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) " extends beyond
workplace-related or employmentrelated
retaliatory acts and harm " :
We evaluate all the circumstances,
including the frequency of the
discriminatory conduct; its severity;
whether it is physically threatening
or humiliating, or a mere
offensive utterance; and whether
it unreasonably interferes with an
employee's work performance.
In addition, the court also would
September 2022 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2022 - Parks & Recreation
