Connection is key when claiming discrimination
Published 12/07/06

If an employee claims she was unfairly retaliated against by her employer for making a discrimination claim, she must prove the action taken against her was a materially adverse employment action and that there was a causal connection between it and the filing of the Complaint.

In the case of Katherine Gatsas v. Manchester School District , decided by the New Hampshire federal trial court on November 7, 2006, the Court reaffirmed these requirements.

In particular, Gatsas, a teacher at the Hillside Middle School , applied for a job posted for an interim assistant vice principal at the school yet was turned down and the position was filled by an allegedly less qualified male candidate. Gatsas stated that thereafter she heard that one of the decision makers had stated Gatsas would not be considered because she was such a strong aggressive woman. As a result, Gatsas then made a discrimination claim.

Thereafter, she asserted the District reassigned her to teach another course subject and grade in a less desirable classroom. She also stated that the school administration was rude and hostile to her by refusing to speak to her, failing to provide her with requested teaching supplies, and jostling her in the hallways of the school. Gatsas thereafter submitted a letter from her psychiatrist to the District indicating she was unable to work and Gatsas had been out of work since December 2003.

In January 2005, Gatsas notified the District that she was ready to return to work and was interested in pursuing employment as an "out of district placement monitor" a position to which the District agreed to interview Gatsas. However, because she lacked reliable transportation, which was a necessity, Gatsas was unable to pursue the position.

Since Gatsas believed that she was denied the interim assistant principal position and suffered retaliatory treatment because of her accusations of gender discrimination, Gatsas brought a Complaint against the District. The Court ultimately decided that the District was entitled to a partial summary judgment thereby precluding Gatsas from pursuing all her claims except for the claim that she was passed over in favor of a male candidate for the interim assistant principal position. In particular, the Court found that Gatsas would have to allege a genuine issue of fact that the alleged retaliatory action was material, producing significant, not trivial harm.

The Court noted that an employee's decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.

The Court pointed out that the plaintiff alleged that her job change to teach seventh grade language arts rather than sixth grade science and to do so in another less desirable classroom was retaliatory, yet that never happened because the District rescinded the planned reassignment after her objection through a union representative.

The Court further stated that it would be difficult to characterize that the switch of subjects and classroom to be a materially adverse employment action. The record indicated that teachers are frequently reassigned from year to year and the Gatsas' employment history revealed that she had been reassigned several times in the pass. The classroom, though comparatively undesirable, was nevertheless an actively used classroom to which someone had to be assigned.

Further, the Court noted that aside from requiring additional planning and preparation at the beginning of the academic year, there was no evidence that teaching seventh grade language arts is any more or less burdensome than teaching sixth grade science or that Gatsas was unqualified to teach either. The Court further found that other alleged retaliatory acts - being jostled in the hallways, having her supervisor visit her classroom frequently, the threat of having certain furniture removed from the classroom, and the lack of supplies - are relatively trivial vicissitudes of work life and do not rise to a viable retaliation claim.

Lastly, the Court found that a New Hampshire wrongful discharge claim must fail when there is a statutory cause of action available to her based upon the facts.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder of Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues, including employment, and advocating on their behalf. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.