- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 24, 2001

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a supervisors crude remark fell far short of sexual harassment under federal civil rights laws, and threw out a Nevada school employees lawsuit.
The court issued a unanimous, unsigned decision in the case of Shirley A. Breeden, who sued the Clark County school district over a 1994 incident with her supervisor and a co-worker. Both are men.
Citing the reasoning in previous Supreme Court cases, the justices wrote that those who believe themselves victims of sexual harassment may sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if the reputed harassment "is so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment."
Miss Breeden was an administrator for the Clark County school district when she attended a meeting to discuss applicants for school police officer positions. Also attending the meeting were her supervisor and one of her subordinates.
A report on one applicant showed that he admitted saying to a co-worker at a previous job, "Making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon."
Miss Breeden said her supervisor read the statement out loud, looked at her, shrugged his shoulders and said he didnt know what it meant. Her subordinate said, "Well, Ill tell you later," and both men laughed.
Miss Breeden said she later told her supervisor that she was offended. After that, she said, he treated her harshly, and a month later she was transferred to a job with substantially less supervisory authority.
In 1997, Miss Breeden filed a harassment lawsuit against the school district. She says that 10 days later she was transferred to a largely clerical job in a trailer several miles from the main office.
A federal judge dismissed her retaliation claim, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it. Although the supervisors remark would not support a sexual harassment claim, it was reasonable for Miss Breeden to think it was unlawful harassment, the court said.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision, and said the first federal judge was correct to throw out the claim.
"No reasonable person could have believed that the single incident recounted above violated Title VIIs standard," the justices wrote, referring to the relevant section of the Civil Rights Act.
The court decided the case without hearing oral arguments or reviewing extensive paperwork from both sides.
The school district had appealed to the high court, arguing that the 9th Circuits ruling allows employees to file retaliation claims over an "inconsequential act." After Miss Breeden was reassigned, she had the same salary and still had significant administrative responsibilities, the districts lawyers added.
Miss Breedens lawyers argued that if her reassignments did not count as retaliation, it would send the message to employees, "complain at your own risk."
Also yesterday, the Supreme Court took these actions:
* Heard arguments in a case testing whether federal law limits the amount of damages that victims of job discrimination can collect to make up for lost future earnings.
* Agreed to decide whether some companies can be required to pay lifetime health benefits promised to retired coal miners, even if the company the miners worked for is no longer in business.
* Turned down an appeal from convicted murderer Jack Kevorkian, who wanted to revive his libel suit against medical groups that called him a criminal and a "reckless instrument of death."
* Turned down an appeal testing whether local governments must allow volunteer rescuers to stand in for government employees.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide