Plaintiff's Attempts To Bribe Witnesses Result In Dismissal, September 24, 2003
While the courts give some leeway to plaintiffs representing themselves in litigation, they do not tolerate those who abuse the litigation process. For example, a federal court in the District of Columbia dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a woman against her former employer because of her egregious conduct during the course of the litigation. See Young v. Office of the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms, No. 98-0794 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2003). In that case, the plaintiff claimed that she was the victim of a hostile work environment, which she claimed ultimately caused her to suffer a nervous breakdown and post-traumatic stress disorder. She left her job on medical disability and never returned.
The court dismissed the woman's claims after learning that she offered bribes – one for $50,000 – to former co-workers to testify favorably on her behalf. The plaintiff also refused to comply with any discovery requests, ignoring court orders to produce her medical records and to submit to an independent medical examination. The court ruled that the plaintiff's efforts to thwart the litigation process that she instigated by filing her complaint warranted the ultimate sanction of dismissal of her case.
Private Emails Not For Public Consumption, September 24, 2003
A state court recently ruled that government employees' private emails on workplace computers did not constitute "public records" available for inspection by the public. Florida v. Clearwater, No. SC02-1694 (Fla. Sept. 11, 2003). In that case, a newspaper sued to obtain the private emails of two city of Clearwater employees after the city disclosed only the public emails drafted by those employees in response to a reporter's request for information. The court determined that the newspaper was not entitled to every email stored on the city's computer system, noting that the key consideration for disclosure is the nature of the email, not its physical location. The court ruled that only those emails prepared "in connection with official agency business" were public records as defined by the state statute and that personal emails were not available to the public.
Discipline for Public Display of Affection OK, September 23, 2003
Disciplining a male employee for his passionate displays of physical affection with a co-worker was not sex discrimination or a violation of Ohio's public policy. Schwab worked at an automotive electronics plant. He began a relationship with a married co-worker whose husband also worked at the plant.
The company concluded that the love birds' displays of affection for each other at work were inappropriate after employees complained about being offended by some passionate kissing in the plant lobby and other "get a room" behavior. Management asked that they stop this behavior. Schwab alleged that he suffered discipline for his amorous actions, and that the discipline was an "overshow of supervision" that created a hostile work environment for HIM. In addition, he claimed that female employees were not disciplined for comparable "harmless displays of affection." Upholding summary judgment for the company, the Ohio Court of Appeals rejected Schwab's sex discrimination and public policy claims. Schwab v. Delphi Packard Elec. Sys., No. 2002-T-0081 (Ohio App. September 12, 2003).
"Keep 'em Barefoot and Pregnant" Lets Case Proceed, September 23, 2003
A female employee who allegedly overheard a comment that women should be kept "barefoot and pregnant" after leaving a meeting where she was told she would not be promoted, but that 11 male co-workers were offered new positions, can take her sex discrimination in promotion claim to a jury, says the Seventh Circuit. Volovsek v. Wisconsin Dept. of Agric., No. 02-2074 (7th Cir. September 18, 2003). "A comment like 'keeping them barefoot and pregnant,' if true, is clearly derogatory towards working women," said the court. "It suggests that the person making the comment does not want women in the workplace."
Workplace Gossip Not A Protected Activity, September 16, 2003
A California appeals court recently ruled that employee gossip in the workplace is not necessarily protected speech under the First Amendment. Thompson v. Mt. Diablo Unified School District, No. A097629 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2003). A school principal and teacher's aide sued their school district employer after both received verbal reprimands for spreading gossip about a particular incident they witnessed involving other teachers. The principal and aide claimed that the school's disciplinary measures impinged on their First Amendment right to free speech. Not surprisingly, the court rejected their arguments, finding that their comments "were simply a rehash of the salacious details" of what the aide had witnessed, rather than the protected actions of a whistleblower.
Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391 © 2008 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.tm
