An employee who breaks company policies may be disciplined even though that employee previously engaged in protected activity. This proposition may sound uncontroversial, but some bad-acting employees do try and shield themselves from discipline by pointing to earlier instances of protected activity. They may argue that subsequent discipline, while ostensibly based on legitimate reasons, is in fact retaliatory. Some employees may strategically engage in so-called protected activity solely for the purpose of preempting discipline they see coming. In Musolf v. J.C. Penney Co., a case recently decided by the Eighth Circuit, an employee seemingly tried both tactics. Neither, in the end, proved successful. In Musolf, the plaintiff, Loralie Ann Musolf, worked for J.C. Penney as a loss prevention specialist. In 2010, she reported to J.C. Penney’s management that a co-worker had been sexually harassing her. Following Musolf’s report, the harassment ceased. Several months later, Musolf’s supervisor began to suspect that Musolf had stolen company documents, and, as a result, recommended that Musolf be terminated. After being confronted with the theft allegations, Musolf e-mailed a district manager to complain that the co-worker that Musolf had previously accused of harassment had not been properly punished. While it is unclear whether Musolf received a response to her e-mail, J.C. Penney did terminate Musolf shortly thereafter for Musolf’s misappropriation of company documents. Musolf subsequently brought a lawsuit against J.C. Penney, alleging that the company had unlawfully retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment and for expressing her belief that the alleged-harasser had not been adequately punished. In affirming summary judgment for the employee, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that though the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity by reporting harassment, she had failed to establish that she was terminated in retaliation for that protected activity. The court paid special attention to the fact that seven months had passed between the time Musolf reported the harassment and the time she was terminated. This time lag, according to the court, was “insufficient to show, and in fact weaken[ed] the showing of the required causal link.” Moreover, the fact that Musolf received praise for her work and a raise after reporting the alleged harassment demonstrated to the court a lack of retaliatory motive. While the Musolf case illustrates a fairly common fact pattern, it still offers a few basic reminders: First, though an employee cannot be disciplined for engaging in protected activity, an employee who engages in protected activity can be disciplined. There was no dispute that Musolf, by reporting her co-worker’s alleged harassment, had engaged in legitimate protected activity. This did not, however, immunize her from being discharged for stealing company documents. The take-away is that an employer may discipline an employee for violating company policies even though the employee had previously engaged in protected activity. Employers should nonetheless be aware that such action could provide an unhappy employee with ammunition in a later retaliation claim, and have strong support for the real reason for the discipline. Second, the time gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action matters. An employee will have difficulty showing the necessary causal link when a significant amount of time passes between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. The adverse employment action against Musolf occurred seven months after she engaged in protected activity. The court found this gap large enough to refute causation. Third, courts will be disinclined to allow an employee to insulate themselves from discipline by engaging in sham-protected activity. Though it did not expressly say so, the court seemed to believe that Musolf’s act of e-mailing a district manager about harassment that allegedly occurred months earlier was nothing more than attempt to avoid being disciplined. As such, it gave short shrift to the notion that she was terminated in retaliation for this e-mail. The court also noted that Musolf’s supervisor had recommended her termination before Musolf actually contacted her district manager, which also belied any causal link.
Prior Protected Activity Did Not Immunize Employee from Later Bad Acts
RELATED ARTICLES
Workplace Culture 2.0: More Leadership, Less Management
May 29, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
When Is A Sexual Harassment Policy And Training Ineffective?
April 26, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sex, Power & the Workplace Responding to the Skeptics Q&A: Part 2
April 4, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sexual Harassment 2.1: Keep Up, We Are Moving Fast…
February 20, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sexual Harassment In The Non-Profit World
February 14, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Workplace Culture 2.0: More Leadership, Less Management
May 29, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
When Is A Sexual Harassment Policy And Training Ineffective?
April 26, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sex, Power & the Workplace Responding to the Skeptics Q&A: Part 2
April 4, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sexual Harassment 2.1: Keep Up, We Are Moving Fast…
February 20, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sexual Harassment In The Non-Profit World
February 14, 2018 | Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Part 4: Sex, Power, and the Workplace – When to Tell the Customer They’re Wrong
December 5, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Part 2: Sex, Power, and the Workplace – Preventing the Backlash
November 28, 2017 | Employment Discrimination, Employment Lessons, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Employers Take Note: Sexual Harassment is Not OK … Finally
November 22, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Sexual Harassment Retaliation Claim Nets Million-Dollar Verdict
October 7, 2016 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Five Lessons from Fox News on Sexual Harassment
August 4, 2016 | EEOC, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Some Reminders on Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Liability
December 15, 2014 | Letter of the Law, Workplace Culture and Conduct, Currents - Employment Law
Even If The Employee Didn’t See or Know About Harassing Behavior, Court Allows Evidence
November 17, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Ouch! Fourth Circuit reminds North Carolina company of its responsibility to protect employees—even from its customers
May 12, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Severe AND Pervasive?
December 9, 2013 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
The Trouble With The So-Called “Equal Opportunity Harasser” – Another Cautionary Case
May 30, 2013 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Internal Investigations Can Be Crucial to Defense Against Retaliation Claims
March 8, 2013 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
To Avoid Employer Liability for Harassment, Keep an Eye on “Supervisors”
September 17, 2012 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center