Blog Post
Anderson v. Oklahoma State University Bd. of Regents, No. 08-6249 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
August 17, 2009
Topic: Daily Developments in EEO Law
You would think that having to compete for a job with someone who's having sex with the boss would present a sex discrimination case under Title VII, but courts (as this unpublished Tenth Circuit decision demonstates) generally do not agree.
Anderson v. Oklahoma State University Bd. of Regents, No. 08-6249 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2009): Admittedly, the facts of this case present an unlikely vehicle for changing the law. The employee turned in his supervisor for engaging in an affair with (and preferentially treating) a female co-worker. An investigation turned out negative; meanwhile, the employee who complained was excluded from management meetings and eventually terminated during a reduction in force. Plaintiff sued alleging, inter alia, retaliation for making the complaint under Title VII.
The panel affirms summary judgment, holding that the employee failed to estalish that he was engaged in a protected activity. The panel reaffirms stanidng circuit precedent that it is not a violation of Title VII for a boss to show "preferential treatment on the basis of a consensual romantic relationship between a supervisor and an employee. . . ., "quoting Taken v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1366, 1370 (10th Cir. 1997). The plaintiff urged either a modification or straight overruling of this standard, citing King v. Palmer, 778 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1985), but the panel held that it had no authority to overule circuit authority and that, in any event, a majority of circuits agreed with its view of the law.
The correct theory I would suppose, though it does not appear to have been the case here, would be that an open-and-notorious paramour relationship might create a hostile work environment for an employee who doesn't submit to the boss's advances, and that complaining about this up the management chain is a protected activity. Considering how courts have shown scarely any interest in sorting out these workplace soap operas, any change in this small corner of Title VII law will be slow to come.
Topics
Daily Developments in EEO Law
EEO Case Summaries by Circuit
Old "Daily Developments" Blog Archive
Recent Updates
July 20, 2010
Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, No. 09-3661 (7th Cir. July 20, 2010)
July 15, 2010
Gacek v. American Airlines, No. 09-3131 (7th Cir. July 15, 2010)
July 08, 2010
Breiner v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, No. 09-15568 (9th Cir. July 8, 2010)
Archives
July, 2010
June, 2010
May, 2010
April, 2010
March, 2010
February, 2010
January, 2010
December, 2009
November, 2009
October, 2009
September, 2009
December, 2008
November, 2008
October, 2008
September, 2008
August, 2008
July, 2008
June, 2008
May, 2008
April, 2008
March, 2008
June, 2009
May, 2009
April, 2009
March, 2009
February, 2009
January, 2009
July, 2009
August, 2009
Web Resources
Other Employment Sites Worth a Spin (updated 12/19/08)
Jottings by an Employment Lawyer
Employment Law Information Network
Regional
California Labor & Employment Law Blog
Storm's California Employment Law
Connecticut Employment Law Blog
New York Employment Lawyer Blog
[Virginia] The Laconic Law Blog
Legal-Related, Not Specifically Employment, But Good Reading



