Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Rejecting Supervisor's Sexual Advances Is Not Protected Activity for Retaliation Claim Under Title VII: N.D. Ill.
Practical Law Legal Update w-002-8253 (Approx. 4 pages)
Rejecting Supervisor's Sexual Advances Is Not Protected Activity for Retaliation Claim Under Title VII: N.D. Ill.
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 20 Jul 2016 • Illinois, USA |
In Doe v. TRP Acquisition Inc., the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that rejection of a supervisor's advances is not protected activity for a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and that allegations of sexual assault constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an anonymous "Jane Doe" lawsuit.
On July 11, 2016, in Doe v. TRP Acquisition Inc., the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that:
- Rejecting a supervisor's advances is not protected activity for a retaliation claim under Title VII.
- Allegations of sexual assault constituted exceptional circumstances warranting plaintiff proceeding with her lawsuit anonymously.
Background
The plaintiff filed suit against her employer TRP Acquisition Inc. (TRP) anonymously under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" (Doe) because of the "extremely personal and humiliating nature of the allegations" including allegations of sexual assault and harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e; 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1).
Doe claims she was repeatedly assaulted in the workplace by her supervisor between May and October 2015, but initially did not report the assaults because she feared losing her job. When she resisted her supervisor's advances, he threatened to fire her. In October 2015, Doe reported the assaults and harassment to TRP management. A month later, TRP placed Doe on a leave of absence due to an unrelated injury. Doe brought this action against TRP in March 2016, alleging violations of Title VII and the IHRA, and common law tort claims. TRP moved to dismiss the lawsuit.
Outcome
The district court granted in part and denied in part TRP's motion, holding that:
- Rejecting a supervisor's advances is not protected activity for a retaliation claim under Title VII.
- Allegations of sexual assault constituted exceptional circumstances warranting Doe proceeding with her lawsuit anonymously.
On the merits of the plaintiff's allegations, the district court:
- Noted that federal courts of appeals are split on the issue of whether resisting a supervisor's sexual advances amounts to protected activity under Title VII (Tate v. Exec. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 546 F.3d 528, 532 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting the split between the Eighth Circuit, which holds that it is protected activity, and the Fifth Circuit, which holds that it is not). The Seventh Circuit has not addressed the issue.
- Found that the majority position in the Northern District of Illinois is that resisting a supervisor's sexual advances (where this is the "sole protected activity" alleged) is not protected within the meaning of Title VII (Van v. Ford Motor Co., , at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2016); Farfaras v. Citizens Bank & Trust of Chicago, , at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2004)).
- Adopted the majority position within its district, and held that resisting a supervisor's sexual advances does not constitute protected activity under Title VII or the IHRA.
- Dismissed Doe's retaliation claims.
As to proceeding anonymously, the district court found that:
- Claims must contain a party's real name unless a claimant shows "exceptional circumstances" that warrant anonymity (Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2016)).
- Although the Seventh Circuit disfavors anonymity in legal proceedings, it has identified categorical exceptions "when necessary to protect the privacy of children, rape victims, and other particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses." (Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)).
- The Seventh Circuit generally opposes allowing sexual harassment claimants to proceed anonymously (Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004)). However, because Doe alleged sexual assault, which is typically more serious than harassment, based on the pleadings, Doe can proceed anonymously to the next stage of litigation.
Practical Implications
This decision expands our understanding of what constitutes protected activity for purposes of stating a retaliation claim under Title VII. In certain jurisdictions, plaintiffs may not rely on merely resisting a harasser's advances to support a retaliation claim.