An employee's gender discrimination and retaliation claims failed when he was terminated in connection with a harassment complaint issued by a co-worker.

The plaintiff alleged gender discrimination and retaliation in connection with his termination from employment. Specifically, the plaintiff and another co-worker dated for a brief period of time, and they would infrequently socialize outside of work. However, several months later, the plaintiff began sending his co-worker 20 to 50 emails a month and later showed up to her house, requesting to be let in and then sending her several text messages and emails throughout the night. As a result, his co-worker made a complaint to human resources regarding the plaintiff. Following the complaint, an investigation was conducted, and the plaintiff's supervisor suggested to the human resources manager that two people should be present when interviewing the plaintiff in light of prior outbursts in the workplace.

Following the investigation, the plaintiff was informed that he was being given a written warning. During this meeting, the plaintiff asserted that the treatment of him was "unfair" and that his co-worker "gets off so easily." In addition, the plaintiff would not state that he would stop contacting his co-worker, and the human resources manager reported that the plaintiff acted "irrational" during the meeting and that the conversation was "scary." As a result, the employer made the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment, which prompted the plaintiff's lawsuit.

In dismissing the plaintiff's gender discrimination claim, the court expressly rejected his claims that he and his co-worker were similarly situated. In particular, the court expressly noted that, "To call her similarly situated or characterize her as a mere interviewee rather than a complainant would create a dangerous precedent—for many reasons, a victim of harassment in the workplace may not always be the first person to bring the harassment to an employer's attention." Moreover, the court dismissed the plaintiff's retaliation claim, noting that he admitted during his deposition that he never told his employer that he felt he was being discriminated against based on his gender, but that he was merely "being treated differently" than his co-worker. In rejecting this claim, the court reasoned that the Third Circuit "[h]as made clear that general complaints of unfair treatment cannot support a retaliation claim—the complaint must include some mention of a protected class or conduct to serve as the basis for such a claim."

As can be seen from this case, it is imperative that employers consider every complaint of harassment serious, including those that are prompted from "out of the office" conduct. Prompt actions must be taken to investigate the complaint and remedy the situation, if warranted. Moreover, the employer should take every action to document its investigation in order to protect itself from lawsuits such as the one above.

Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013