Recently, in Williams v. County of Marin, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that displaying the Norman Rockwell painting The Problem We All Live With did not create a hostile work environment.
Danita Williams, an African American, sued the County of Marin after she completed a probationary period as senior clerk/typist in the human resources department and the county decided not to hire her for the position. Williams sued the county for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Williams’ case rested on a number of alleged incidents that occurred during her probationary period.
Williams claimed that during her first week of work, her supervisor, Florence Pattison, gave her a copy of an email related to an audition for a play calling for African American actors. Williams claimed this was done to make her feel uncomfortable, because the email clearly showed that the dates for the audition had already passed. The county responded that Pattison passed on the email because she knew Williams had an interest in singing and dancing, but that she did so before reading it in its entirety.
Also, early on in her probationary period, Williams noticed a painting by Norman Rockwell in the HR director’s office depicting an African American girl being escorted to school walking past a tomato-strewn wall that has the word nigger painted on it. When she expressed concern over the painting, the HR director told Williams that she did not intend to offend anyone and that she believed the print was an inspirational piece of art from the civil rights movement.
Williams also claimed that the county failed to provide a written or verbal evaluation of her performance during her probationary period, as required. The county countered that no policy required such an evaluation. In fact, the county pointed out that between 1999 and 2003, out of seven probationary employees in the HR department, only two employees received a performance evaluation. Of the five employees that did not receive an evaluation, four were Caucasian and one was Asian.
Because Williams successfully established a prima facie claim for racial discrimination and was further able to present evidence of pretext by denying the county’s justifications for her release from probation, the district court denied the county’s motion for summary judgment on Williams’ discrimination claim. The district court also held that Williams had established a prima facie case of retaliation by engaging in the protected activity of expressing her views with regard to the Rockwell painting. In this regard, the court held that Williams was able to demonstrate that retaliation could have been a motivating factor behind her release from probation by proffering evidence that the county’s stated reasons for Williams’ dismissal were pretextual.
On Williams’ hostile environment claim, however, the district court held that she failed to meet her burden of proof. In so ruling, the court decided that Williams failed to show that her workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. Despite the display of the controversial Rockwell painting, the district court held that Williams had not alleged conduct so extreme as to alter the conditions of her employment.
Employer Notes: Where an employee alerts management of objectionable material posted in the workplace, employers must be mindful that what is not offensive to some may be offensive to others. The key to determining if an article is offensive is what would offend the reasonable person with like characteristics. Accordingly, although the Rockwell painting may not be objectionable to a white employee, minority employees may feel differently. The safest course would be removal.
Submitted by Beth Hinsdale, Principal, Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman P.A. You can contact Ms. Hinsdale at hinsdaleb@gghlaw.com.
Reprinted from Council’s Preventing Employment Law Problems in the California Workplace newsletter. Click here to order a free trial or subscribe.
New Conference Offers Comprehensive Solutions for HR, Employment Law
New this year from Council on Education in Management comes a comprehensive employment law and HR event, Complete HR Forum.
Complete HR Forum will bring together three conference tracks: federal employment law, California employment law, and comp/benefits, making it essentially “one-stop shopping” for solutions to some of HR’s most difficult problems.
The Forum will include 16 employment law sessions with over 30 leading employment attorneys from around the country. In addition, there will be 15 case study sessions from employers, including Bank of America, Johnson Controls, TransUnion LLC, Tyco, and others. Keynote speakers will include Rudy Hanley, CEO of one of the nation’s top three “Great Places to Work,” speaking on what CEO’s want from HR, and Javier Lozano, Regional Director for SHRM, speaking on emerging trends in HR.
Register on or before January 7, 2005, and save $100!
For more information about Complete HR Forum, click here.