Termination of HR Manager Who Was Purportedly Dating Subordinate OK'd

Employers have a legitimate interest in preventing potential conflicts of interest between romantically involved managers and subordinate applicants or employees, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

A former human resources manager could not proceed to trial with her Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sex discrimination and retaliation claims, the 7th Circuit decided. The facts before the court did not support the argument that her employment was terminated because of her gender or that she engaged in protected activity. Instead, the court held that it was because of her employer's conclusion that she was dating a subordinate.

Old Wisconsin Sausage Co. hired the plaintiff as its human resources manager in June 2011. Not long after she was hired, a man with whom she was purportedly in a long-term relationship applied for a position within the company. While the plaintiff took part in the applicant's interview process, she did not advise the company that she was in a long-term relationship with him. Once he was hired, he began reporting to her but she did not disclose any relationship with him to management.

In November 2011, management received complaints from three employees that the plaintiff and her subordinate were in a relationship and that her supervision of him constituted a conflict of interest. At the time, the company had an informal policy whereby, upon receipt of a complaint of a relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate, management would meet with the supervisor to discuss the matter. Notably, the company applied this policy to male and female supervisors alike.

During a meeting to discuss the complaints, the plaintiff denied any ongoing relationship with her purported boyfriend. Upon being asked whether she had ever been in a romantic relationship with him, she refused to answer, stating that the line of questioning was "borderline sexual harassment."

[SHRM members-only HR Q&A: What are the different types of sexual harassment?]

Ultimately, the company decided to terminate the plaintiff's employment in April 2012. As the basis for its decision, the company relied on, among other asserted deficiencies, the plaintiff's false and misleading statements relative to her relationship with her subordinate.

Following her discharge, the plaintiff filed a claim under Title VII asserting that the company's decision to terminate her employment was based on her sex. She also asserted a retaliation claim under Title VII.

In support of her discrimination claim, the plaintiff relied on the following, as well as other, allegations: a manager suggested that she lead the company's Weight Watchers program, she was told that she did not dress formally enough for her position as an HR manager, and she expressed concerns that a deserving female employee did not receive a bonus. The plaintiff also relied heavily on the company's interview of her regarding her relationship with her subordinate.

In examining the plaintiff's allegations, the court began by noting that most of them had nothing to do with the challenged adverse employment action—her termination. Furthermore, the court reasoned, a reasonable fact-finder could not conclude that the company's decision to terminate her employment was based on her sex.

The request that the plaintiff serve as the point of contact for a wellness program was consistent with her human resources role. Further, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence, beyond her own conclusory statements, to suggest that the comments regarding her dress had any relationship to the fact that she was a female. Finally, the court noted that after the plaintiff raised her concern that a female employee had not received a bonus, the company, in fact, paid the bonus amount.

Regarding the plaintiff's assertion that she was subject to discriminatory questions regarding her relationship with her subordinate, the court pointed to the fact that the company also questioned male supervisors who were dating subordinates. In short, the court concluded that rather than demonstrating that similarly situated male individuals were treated differently, the evidence indicated that they were treated the same.

In rejecting the plaintiff's retaliation claim based on her perception that she was subjected to "borderline sexual harassment," the court stated that while protected activity can include opposition to discriminatory conduct, the employee must have a good-faith and reasonable belief that the conduct she is opposing is unlawful. However, given the company's uniform application of interviewing male and female supervisors alike regarding their relationships with subordinates, the evidence did not support a good-faith or reasonable belief that the questioning constituted sexual harassment under Title VII.

Owens v. Old Wisconsin Sausage Co. Inc., 7th Cir., No. 16-3875 (Aug. 31, 2017).

Professional Pointer: Employers should ensure that policies and procedures are applied in a uniform and consistent manner to similarly situated employees. Such consistency can serve as a critical fact in defending discrimination and retaliation claims.

Jonathan E. O'Connell, SHRM-SCP, is a labor and employment attorney practicing with the federal government in Washington, D.C.

Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.