From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
An Old Wisconsin Sausage Co. human resources manager who complained about an inquiry into her relationship with a co-worker failed to show her firing was prompted by bias rather than performance issues cited by the company, a federal appeals court ruled ( Owens v. Old Wis. Sausage Co. , 2017 BL 307129, 7th Cir., No. 16-3875, 8/31/17 ).
The Aug. 31 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reaffirms that an employee needs to prove she had an objective, good-faith belief that she engaged in protected activity under federal anti-discrimination law. This is a predicate to establishing a claim that her employer retaliated against her for asserting her right to be free from workplace bias.
When management first asked Jamie Owens about her relationship with employee Matt Kobussen, she adamantly denied that the two were a couple and then refused to answer further questions, declaring “this is borderline sexual harassment.” That statement wasn’t enough to support Owens’ claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the company fired her in retaliation for her complaint instead of its cited reasons, including her role in hiring her live-in boyfriend and repeated denials of the relationship, the court held.
Owens failed to show she reasonably and in good-faith believed that she was subjected to and was complaining about sexual harassment, the court said. Romantic relationships between a manager and a subordinate “pose a conflict of interest with a potential for an adverse impact on the workplace,” it said.
Owens acknowledged that several of her other subordinates complained that her relationship with Kobussen created a conflict of interest, Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner said. Owens’ deposition testimony also indicated “that she was aware of a number of male supervisors in relationships with subordinates, but that in the only situation in which the relationship was not already known to management, the supervisor was questioned by management as to that relationship once an inkling of the relationship arose,” Rovner wrote.
Owens also didn’t show the company’s inquiry and its decision to terminate her were the product of sex discrimination, the court added. One male manager whose situation was comparable to hers, according to Owens, had informed management of his relationship with a subordinate and another employee never supervised the woman he was dating, the court found. Also, Old Wisconsin showed it similarly questioned male managers when it believed they were in relationships like hers, the court said.
The court also affirmed summary judgment against Owens on her retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. She alleged that she complained to management that some employees weren’t being paid for overtime they worked and that Old Wisconsin failed to correct the problem and fired her. But Owens said her predecessor had previously reported the same alleged FLSA violations and he wasn’t fired, the court found.
Moreover, “Owens repeatedly and consistently” maintained both before the district court and on appeal “that the reason for her termination was her failure to answer the questions posed to her regarding her relationship with Kobussen,” Rovner wrote. That fatally undercut her contention that there was a causal link between her FLSA allegations and her firing, she said.
Judges Diane P. Wood and Kenneth F. Ripple joined the opinion.
Heins Employment Law Practice LLC represented Owens. Rohde Dales LLP represented Old Wisconsin.
To contact the reporter on this story: Patrick Dorrian in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the opinion is available at http://bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Owens_v_Old_Wis_Sausage_Co_No_163875_2017_BL_307129_7th_Cir_Aug_3?doc_id=X1FM8K6IG000N.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)