Worker fired because of complaint against supervisor: Court
Reprints
An investigation into an employee who was then allegedly fired because he was selling pornographic tapes was motivated by an earlier complaint the worker had made against his supervisor, says a federal appeals court in reinstating a retaliation charge.
William Fisher, a black worker who began working for Lufkin, Texas-based Lufkin Industries Inc. in 1991, complained in March 2009 that a supervisor had used the term “boy” in addressing him, according to the Feb. 10 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in William Fisher v. Lufkin Industries Inc.
A month later, a supervisor had a co-worker buy an allegedly pornographic DVD from Mr. Fisher, according to the ruling. Five DVDs were then found in his locker, which Mr. Fisher claimed had been planted there. When supervisors tried to search his car, Mr. Fisher said he had to leave work because his wife was ill. He was suspended, the next day and terminated on May 18, 2009.
Mr. Fisher filed suit in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming he had been discharged in retaliation for complaining about his supervisor, among other charges. The District Court dismissed the case.
The retaliation charge’s dismissal was based on a magistrate judge’s view that his termination was justified independent of any other reasons because he had resisted the investigation.
Mr. Tyler appealed dismissal of the retaliation charge. Mr. Fisher’s “lack of cooperation with an investigation that was launched for retaliatory purposes was inextricably tied to this co-worker’s and supervisor’s retaliatory animus,” said a unanimous three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit.
“While we do not endorse Fisher’s response, we view his mild resistance to retaliatory investigation as entirely foreseeable,” said the ruling, in reversing the District Court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Read Next
-
Employer’s liability waiver violated background check law
An employer that provided a job applicant with a background check disclosure and consent form at the same time as a liability waiver violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, says the first appellate court ruling on this issue.
