Dear buddy1986-ga;
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting question.
Here is a case that speaks specifically to the situation you are
referring to. Based on my discovery of these and the other links I
have already provided to you I am posting this as an answer because it
does in fact provide a great example of your very complaint:
INZAINA v FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILIDEPHIA
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/98D0477P.pdf
Here the plaintiff alleged that he was harassed, shunned and ignored
by his supervisors among other things (page 8) in relation for filing
an EEOC and PHRA complaint.
Here is another one - McGuire v. Dept. of the Interior, EEOC Appeal
No. 01974949, October 28, 1999.
?A Research Geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior, was found to have suffered retaliation for
engaging in EEO activity when her supervisors allowed and fostered an
atmosphere of "group hate" towards her within the office. The Research
Geologist's coworkers engaged in "jokes, sniping, crafty comments" and
"lots of chuckling" directed at her, some of which involved her EEO
activity. In addition, one management official spoke to groups of
people during coffee klatches about the "so-called problem" and how
much the EEO activity was costing the branch, while another referenced
the EEO activity in a derogatory manner and stated that many people
felt the employee was "abusing the system." Discussions about the
employee and her EEO activity were a major topic of conversation in
the office. Witnesses said these incidents led to an atmosphere of
"gang hate" directed towards the employee. Coworkers who were friendly
prior to the EEO complaint being filed shunned the employee, fearing
that their advancement would be tainted by associating with her.?
FEDMANAGER
http://www.fedmanager.com/page108.htm
It should be noted though that courts, in some non-Federal employment
cases, have held that mere shunning, ostracism and ambivalence toward
an employee is not actionable:
Circuit Court:
?However, the Fielder Court did state that the retaliation by the
co-worker must "rise to the level of an adverse employment action."
Not all retaliation may rise to that level. For example, the Eighth
Circuit has held that the mere shunning of such an employee by
co-workers is probably not actionable, see, Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A.
Co., Inc., 181 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 1999). Be careful, because the
distinction is finely drawn, to say the least.?
HOLMES, ROBERTS AND OWEN LLC
Employment Law Newsletter
http://www.hro.com/news_letters_display.cfm?idnum=239
Supreme Court:
?Petitioner has failed to provide evidence that her co-workers
subjected her to anything more than shunning. Ostracism, negative
comments, and empty threats fail to rise to the severity required for
a hostile work environment. The conduct Petitioner alleges, although
maybe uncomfortable, does not provide sufficient evidence for a Title
VII retaliation claim.?
?Also, the Court in Flannery v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d
425, 428 (8th Cir. 1998), refused to classify shunning as an adverse
employment action when the ostracism did not result in a reduced
salary, benefits, seniority, or responsibilities.?
ALI v. WIGMORE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND
FLANNERY v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/juliusminer/problem/2003/SampleBrief1.pdf
I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
DEFINED ABOVE
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINE USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
RETALIATION
FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE
SUPERVISOR
PROHIBITED ACTIONS
LAW
SHUNNING
OSTRACISM
AMBIVALENCE |
