Billings v. Town of Grafton
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2699, 515 F.3d 39, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,101 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Frequent, unwelcome staring at a female subordinate's breasts, even without touching or overtly sexual comments, can be sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute an objectively hostile work environment under Title VII. An employer's actions are materially adverse for a retaliation claim if they would dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination; this includes job transfers that reduce prestige and responsibility, even if pay and benefits remain the same.
Facts:
- Nancy M. Billings began working as a secretary for Town Administrator Russell J. Connor, Jr. in September 1999.
- A few months into her employment, Billings observed that Connor would frequently stare at her chest for several seconds at a time during conversations.
- The staring caused Billings to take measures like holding papers in front of her chest and avoiding being alone with Connor; other female employees reported that Connor engaged in similar behavior toward them.
- Billings made a formal complaint about the staring. After Connor learned Billings was the complainant, he began avoiding her, communicating with her through notes and 'grunts,' and made an offensive comment to another employee implying Billings was performing oral sex under his desk.
- Following a heart attack, Connor's doctors recommended reducing his work-related stress. His psychologist specifically stated that working with Billings, whom he felt had falsely accused him, would jeopardize his health.
- Based on these recommendations, the Town transferred Billings to a secretarial position in the recreation department.
- While Billings's pay and benefits remained the same, her new position had less responsibility, fewer qualifications, reported to a lower-level supervisor, and required her to join a union and use a time clock.
- After the transfer, Billings was banned from entering her former office, the Selectmen's Office, for any reason, causing her to miss a training session.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy M. Billings filed a charge of discrimination against Russell J. Connor, Jr. and the Town of Grafton with the EEOC and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD).
- After receiving a right-to-sue notice, Billings filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be a hostile work environment and that the employment actions were not materially adverse for a retaliation claim.
- Billings, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a supervisor's frequent and persistent staring at a female subordinate's breasts, without physical touching or overtly sexual comments, create a triable issue of fact as to whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute an objectively hostile work environment, and can a subsequent job transfer with reduced prestige constitute a materially adverse employment action for a retaliation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A supervisor's persistent staring can create a triable issue of fact for a hostile work environment claim, and a transfer to a less prestigious job can constitute a materially adverse action for a retaliation claim. For the hostile work environment claim, the absence of physical touching or overtly sexual comments does not preclude a finding that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. A reasonable jury, considering all circumstances including the frequency of the conduct over several years and its effect on the plaintiff, could find the environment was objectively hostile. For the retaliation claim, an action is materially adverse if it would dissuade a reasonable employee from making a discrimination charge. A transfer to a job with objectively less prestige, fewer responsibilities, and less desirable working conditions qualifies, even without a loss in pay. Furthermore, a jury could find the employer's proffered reason for the transfer—as a medical accommodation—was pretextual, given inconsistent accounts of the decision-making process and other evidence of retaliatory animus.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that non-verbal conduct, such as persistent staring, can be sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim without accompanying physical contact or sexually explicit remarks. It reinforces the broad, context-specific standard for what constitutes a 'materially adverse action' in retaliation claims, as established in Burlington Northern. The ruling emphasizes that actions reducing job prestige or altering working conditions for the worse can be retaliatory, even if salary is unaffected. The case serves as a caution to lower courts against granting summary judgment for employers in discrimination cases where there are genuine factual disputes about the severity of conduct or the employer's true motivations.
Unlock the full brief for Billings v. Town of Grafton