In Scott v. ManTech International Corporation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed a hostile work environment harassment claim, but allowed a claim for retaliation to proceed based on actions taken after the employee complained about the harassment.

Background

Remington Scott, who is of Filipino and African-American ancestry, was employed by ManTech International Corp. for nearly four years with generally positive performance reviews when he was transferred to Kuwait in June 2016.  Soon after the transfer, Scott’s supervisor:

1. Told Scott that “half-black and half-Filipinos aren’t allowed in the office”;
2. Told Scott that he would enjoy living with a coworker because “you both are Filipino and eat the same food”;
3. Told another person that Scott was a “whore.”

Scott lodged a formal complaint with management in January 2017.  Soon after making the complaint, Scott alleged the following retaliatory actions occurred:

1. Scott was required to wear safety goggles when others were not;
2. Scott’s requests for repairs to the vehicle he was assigned to drive were denied and as a result the vehicle was unsafe to drive;
3. On February 15, 2017, when Scott refused to drive the unsafe vehicle, he was reprimanded by two supervisors, including Jeffrey Bentley (“Bentley”);
4. The next day, Bentley did not allow Scott to take a lunch break;
5. The day after that, Bentley ordered — in a hostile manner and in front of other employees — Scott to get out of his vehicle and did not allow him to return to work that day; and
6. Scott requested a transfer back to Hawaii, which was granted, but he changed his mind shortly thereafter and ManTech refused to cancel the transfer.

Scott brought various claims against ManTech, including for hostile work environment harassment and retaliation.

Hostile Work Environment

The Court determined the three comments made by Scott’s supervisor were “extremely offensive,” but were insufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.  The Court therefore dismissed Scott’s hostile work environment claim, but gave him an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege additional facts that would support such a claim.

Retaliation

Looking at the totality of the circumstances presented by the 6 allegations of retaliatory actions, the Court determined that Scott pled sufficient facts to support his claim for retaliation.  The Court noted that the denial of Scott’s request for repairs to his vehicle and subsequent reprimand for refusing to use the unsafe vehicle particularly demonstrated retaliation in that such acts “might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”  

The Court also determined that a causal connection existed based on the closeness in time between Scott’s protected activity (lodging a formal complaint in January 2017) and the adverse employment actions.

Takeaway

In this case, as is often the case, a retaliation claim survives even though the underlying charge upon which the retaliation is based gets dismissed.  As indicated in previous news digest articles, retaliation claims continue to be some of the most common charges filed with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Employers should ensure that their company policies clearly state that retaliation is prohibited and that their managers and employees all understand that retaliation is prohibited by law.  HEC can help you draft an anti-retaliation policy and provide training to your managers and employees.