Fired for Sex Jokes, Man Claims Disability Act Violations Instead

By Eric B. Meyer

As I resist every urge to cheapen this post further by resorting to silly puns and other double entendre, allow me to set the stage of this case for you:

The plaintiff was an auto technician in the vehicle install bay at a large electronics store. According to the court’s opinion (in Sharp v. Best Buy Co., Inc.), he was familiar with the store’s zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. Through his doctor, the plaintiff, who had narcolepsy and cataplexy, requested no shift work. With one scheduling exception, the store accommodated him.

About a year later, one of the plaintiff’s female co-workers accused him of sexual harassment. The allegations revolved around comments from the plaintiff regarding the victim and the act of fellatio.

Court doesn’t see any ADA violations

After HR received the complaint, it investigated further, found plenty of corroboration, and determined that the plaintiff had violated the store’s sexual harassment policy. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was fired.

He then sued, claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because, of course.

Predictably, in its opinion, the federal court didn’t see eye to eye with the once-represented, but eventually pro se, plaintiff:

Article Continues Below

As [plaintiff] conceded during his deposition, conduct constituting sexual harassment was a violation of [defendant’s] personnel policies. In addition to denying the allegations, [plaintiff] testified that he believed that his co-workers fabricated the allegations of sexual harassment against him because they blamed him for getting a co-worker fired. Even if [plaintiff’s] suspicion were true, he cannot defeat [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment as long as his employer had an honest belief in its proffered nondiscriminatory reason.”

Takeaway for employers

As I like to emphasize during training sessions, an employee complaint about discrimination in the workplace, an accommodation request, or any other protected activity does not bulletproof the complainant from discipline for work rules violations.

This is an extreme example, but, even in closer calls, employers should resist the urge to excuse employees who violate work rules. Indeed, by cutting employees slack, employers actually open themselves up to disparate treatment claims.

So, enforce your work rules evenly. And, unless you operate in the adult film industry, don’t tolerate oral sex talk at work.

This was originally published on Eric B. Meyer’s blog, The Employer Handbook.

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? Eric B. Meyer, Esq. gets companies HR-compliant before the action sequence. Serving clients nationwide, Eric is a Partner at FisherBroyles, LLP, which is the largest full-service, cloud-based law firm in the world, with approximately 210 attorneys in 21 offices nationwide. Eric is also a volunteer EEOC mediator, a paid private mediator, and publisher of The Employer Handbook (www.TheEmployerHandbook.com), which is pretty much the best employment law blog ever. That, and he's been quoted in the British tabloids. #Bucketlist.

Topics

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *