Is an Employer Liable for Breakup-related Harassment?
Maybe, according to a recent federal court decision.
The Facts
Allison Forrest, a bartender at Chili’s in South Portland, Maine, and Mike Vashaw, a cook, began dating in 2003. Their relationship was rocky and often spilled over into the workplace. For example, after one of their early breakups, Vashaw allegedly arranged to have four women accost Forrest in the Chili’s parking lot. Forrest complained to management and the company disciplined Vashaw. The couple then reconciled and continued their romance for several months.
Forrest and Vashaw broke up for good in 2005 when Forrest began dating another man. Forrest alleges that Vashaw immediately began to harass her with a vengeance. She filed three separate complaints with management in which she claimed Vashaw squirted her with hot water, gossiped about her with co-workers, refused to give her items she needed from the kitchen and called her derogatory names.
Investigations and Corrective Action
After the first complaint, Chili’s promptly investigated and then issued Vashaw a verbal warning to “stop and behave as a professional” or “circumstances will take place.”
Vashaw allegedly ignored the warning and continued harassing Forrest by calling her “b**ch” and “wh**e” in front of other employees.
When Forrest complained again, Chili’s investigated and issued Vashaw a written warning threatening “immediate termination” if the “negative confrontations” didn’t stop.
Vashaw then allegedly told Forrest that she was fat and needed to go to the gym. Forrest complained, Chili’s investigated and then fired Vashaw.
The Lawsuit
Forrest quit a month after Vashaw was terminated. She filed a federal lawsuit, alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. Specifically, she claimed that Chili’s subjected her to a hostile work environment by failing to take appropriate action to stop the harassment by Vashaw.
The Maine U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to Chili’s. It concluded that Vashaw’s actions didn’t constitute sexual harassment because they were merely “retribution after a failed romantic relationship” and thus weren’t “based upon [Forrest's] sex.” Forrest appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed. It cited “a raft” of case law holding that the use of derogatory gender-specific terms such as “b**ch” and “wh**e” could constitute harassment based on gender.
The court stated that “whether a harasser picks his or her targets because of a prior intimate relationship, desire for a future intimate relationship, or any other factor that draws the harasser’s attention should not be the focus on the Title VII analysis.” It added: “presumably the prior relationship would never have occurred if the victim were not a member of the sex preferred by the harasser, and thus the victim’s sex is inextricably linked to the harasser’s decision to harass.”
The Ruling
Despite disagreeing with the the lower court’s approach to the law, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that Chili’s was not liable for harassment because it took “prompt and appropriate action” to Forrest’s complaints.
The Lesson
Based on this case, employers could be found liable for harassment that’s related solely to the breakup of an office romance. To avoid this happening to you, do what Chili’s did:
- ensure that your anti-harassment policies and procedures are up-to-date and distributed to all employees;
- regularly train all employees on the policies and procedures;
- take all complaints of harassment seriously and conduct prompt and thorough investigations; and
- immediately take appropriate corrective action.
For more, check out our Harassment Cheat Sheet, Investigation Checklist and Termination Tools.
