A federal appeals court has allowed a former HR manager’s sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry to proceed. The plaintiff, who was fired after surfacing employees’ harassment and bias complaints, claimed that she was retaliated against for making reports about the alleged misconduct.
The case details illustrate the difficulties HR professionals may face in investigating misconduct by company leaders. The plaintiff reported multiple instances of misconduct by company leaders, one of whom allegedly treated her and her all-female department as “secretaries” and directed them to perform menial tasks unrelated to their job duties.
The plaintiff’s male supervisor gave her a negative performance review that labeled her a “very divisive figure at WAF.” After the plaintiff raised concerns that she was being retaliated against for making reports about the alleged misconduct, WAF fired her.
A district court granted summary judgment to WAF on all claims, but the 7th Circuit partly reversed, holding that a jury could find that the company’s stated reasoning for her firing was pretextual. The court noted that the plaintiff fielded several sexual harassment complaints made against WAF’s vice president of operations, one of which, she told her supervisor, would have been difficult for the company to defend in court.
However, the VP was allegedly not disciplined and received only additional training following the incident.
Related: HR trust grows with smarter AI use
According to sources, the case details described by the 7th Circuit illustrate the difficulties HR professionals may face in investigating misconduct by company leaders. A reasonable jury, the court continued, could conclude that the supervisor’s unresponsiveness to the plaintiff’s own harassment and discrimination reports was evidence that the supervisor “was influenced by this sexist environment, and in fact, had lent it his imprimatur by failing to intervene and address the plaintiff’s complaints.”
A third-party report commissioned by WAF disclosed employee and manager ratings of select company leaders, including the plaintiff. Respondents said the plaintiff had “worked hard to ‘make things better'” and tried to improve the company’s HR department but that she also lacked the trust of employees and engaged in gossip, among other criticisms.
HR employees have featured as plaintiffs in several recent discrimination cases, some of which involve their role in investigating or reporting discrimination. In February, a Utah jury awarded a benefits generalist more than $5 million after it found her employer retaliated against her after she complained about a supervisor’s behavior, related to workplace harassment.
The case highlights the need for companies to take allegations of misconduct seriously and to ensure that HR professionals are able to investigate and report on such incidents without fear of retaliation. As the court’s decision suggests, the failure to do so can have serious consequences for both the company and the individuals involved.
Companies must take allegations seriously.
Leave a Reply