The employment attorneys at Alitowski & Moore, P.A. offer free consultations regarding sexual harassment claims in Florida. If you feel that you have been the victim of harassment, contact any of our offices today so that we may speak with you about your case.
Florida Sexual Harassment Attorneys: Sexual Harassment and Retaliation in the Florida Workplace – "Always be cautious when confronted with offensive behavior tantamount to sexual harassment in the workplace. Such activity, while actionable, does not give a victimized employee the right to respond in a manner which violates the employee code of conduct."
Case Update for Florida Discrimination & Harassment Attorneys. For more information about this appellate issue, contact the employment attorneys of Alitowski & Moore in Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach or Miami Beach.
Hostile Work Environment & Sexual Harassment in Florida.
Florida sexual harassment attorneys note that in February of 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided a case that involved Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act as well as a retaliation claim. The facts are as follows. Ms. Latrece Lockett worked for a Clarion hotel in Tampa, Florida from August 2005 until August 2006. She met a co-worker there named Eric Watson. They became friends. In April of 2006, Ms. Lockett worked at a reservations desk. And began taking her lunch breaks at the café. It is while at the café that Mr. Watson said the following to her: that he wanted to lick her "pussy", that he "would go down on her good", that her boyfriend "ain’t F’ing her right" and that she need to "get with a real guy." (See Lockett v. Choice hotels International, Inc., 315 Fed.Appx. 862 (C.A. 11 (Fla.))). He also stuck out his tongue at her a few times and tried to hug her. Id. As a result of this, Ms. Lockett stopped going to the café for about three weeks. Id.
According to sexual harassment attorneys, Ms. Locket did the right thing and complained to a supervisor, the café manager and Mr. Watson’s supervisor. Mr. Gomez spoke to Mr. Watson but the harassment continued. Id. So, in August of 2006, Ms. Lockett spoke to her supervisor’s manager, Ms. Mangual. Ms. Mangual informed Mr. Gomez again of the complaints and he again spoke to Mr. Watson. Id. Several weeks later Ms. Lockett again told Ms. Mangual that Mr. Watson was still at it and so Ms. Mangual immediately told HR. Id. The HR person that day spoke to Mr. Watson who admitted to it at a meeting proceeded to jump up as if he was going to hit Ms. Lockett. Ms. Lockett said to him that "I have a boyfriend for you," indicating that her boyfriend would take care of Mr. Watson. (Florida sexual harassment attorneys caution that this was a mistake on Ms. Watson’s part and the "out" that allowed the defendant in firing her).
After the meeting Mr. Watson was immediately fired. Id. But, so was Ms. Watson. Id. She was fired for violating the writing policy prohibiting "threats of violence" and for "offensive or threatening conduct or language" towards fellow employees. Id. When Ms. Lockett made that comment about her boyfriend, though anyone in her situation could rightfully understand her saying it, especially after what she had been had to deal with and right after the guy jumped up and made an attempt like he was going to hit her; but, that one comment, that one sentence, gave her employer the right to fire her for violating the written policy.
This Eleventh Circuit court, like all other Florida courts, looked at the law regarding Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. "Because the Florida Civil Rights Act is patterned after Title VII, courts generally apply Title VII case law to discrimination claims brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act." Id. "An employer violated Title VII when it creates "a hostile work environment caused by sexual harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of work." (Cites omitted). Id. To establish sexual harassment under Title VII, the plaintiff must show "1) she belongs to a protected group, 2) she has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, 3) the harassment was based on her membership in a protected group, 4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment, and 5) a basis for holding the employer liable exists." Id.
In this Lockett case, the court stated that only the 4th and 5th elements were in dispute. Id. It then stated that "Title VII does not serve as a "general civility code." (Cites omitted). Id. "Simple teasing.. offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)" do not constitute a hostile work environment. Id.
The Court then stated that "a court must first consider whether the plaintiff subjectively perceived the harassment to be severe or pervasive." Then it must determine whether that perception is objectively reasonable. Id. The court does that by taking a "totality of the circumstances" view. After reviewing the testimony, the Court stated that Ms. Locket admitted that she and Mr. Watson were at first friends. Id. Further, she only stopped going to the café for three weeks and never sought medical treatment or counseling because of Mr. Watson's behavior. Id. Thus, the Court determined that the evidence did not "support a subjective belief that Watson’s conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a hostile work environment." Id. But, that even assuming Ms. Lockett believed this, the perception would not be objectively reasonable. Id. The frequency was only for a three week period. As a result, all she was forced to do is not go to the café. While the Court did agree that the alleged conduct was offensive, it "did not rise to the level of being sever, physically threatening, or humiliating." Id.
Though Ms. Lockett tried to argue that the conduct was physically threatening and the comment were severe and humiliating, this Court did not find it so and stated that it fell below the "minimum level of severity or humiliation needed to establish sexual harassment." Id. Thus, if you are someone reading this, you probably are shaking your head thinking "if that did not qualify, then what would?"... That is a good question and why there is no real bright line test that any employment lawyer can give you. The sexual harassment has to happen a lot and happen often, but exactly how much, no one knows.
But further, the Court in Lockett stated that there was also no evidence that Mr. Watson’s conduct "unreasonably interfere with Lockett’s work performance." Id. In fact, Ms. Lockett testified that Mr. Watson’s actions did "not affect her work, that she felt she should not have been fired because she was a good worker, and that she received at least one pay raise during the time the harassment allegedly occurred." Id. "The only change in Lockett’s working conditions stemmed from her decision not to eat at the café’ for three weeks. When viewed in context, this does not constitute unreasonable interference with Lockett’s job performance." Id.
The Court also said that there was no basis for holding the employer liable in that once it found out about the conduct the supervisors spoke to Mr. Watson and finally the HR person got involved and when he admitted to his actions, Mr. Watson was terminated. Thus, the actions by employer were appropriate. The employer took prompt remedial action and therefore not liable for Mr. Watson’s alleged harassment. Id. And finally, the Court reasoned that there was no retaliation by the employer in that Ms. Lockett was fired for violating the company policy and this was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason based on what she said.
If you have been involved in a sexual harassment hostile work environment case that you would like to find out the answers to, please call and speak to Florida sexual harassment lawyer Andrew S. Alitowski or William Ryan Moore at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637). We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
