New England Biz Law Update
A female doctor’s claims of gender discrimination and retaliation failed to survive summary judgment when she couldn’t demonstrate that workplace tensions stemmed from gender-based animus rather than general interpersonal conflicts, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The decision in O’Horo v. Boston Medical Center Corporation reinforces that while Title VII prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, it does not serve as a “general civility code” for the workplace. Employers can take steps to address interpersonal conflicts while remaining vigilant against genuine discrimination.
Background and findings
The plaintiff, an interventional radiologist at Boston Medical Center (BMC), resigned in January 2020 claiming constructive discharge after reporting patient safety concerns about a colleague and experiencing what she alleged was gender-based discrimination and retaliation.
The court found the plaintiff’s evidence of gender discrimination lacking on multiple fronts including:
- Hostile work environment: The plaintiff’s complaints about “mansplaining” and condescending treatment failed because the alleged harasser demonstrated similar behavior toward male colleagues.
- Adverse employment actions: Even under the Supreme Court’s recent Muldrow standard, which eliminated the requirement that harm be “significant,” the plaintiff still needed to show actual changes to employment terms/conditions.
- Constructive discharge: Having failed to establish a hostile work environment claim (a necessary predicate), the plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim could not survive.
- Retaliation: The court found legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for why the plaintiff wasn’t selected for two departmental directorships, including proper division of responsibilities.
Judicial commentary
In the decision, Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí wrote for the panel: “Even if we assume as true [the plaintiff’s] version of the foregoing allegations, when viewed both individually and collectively, they do not amount to the sort of severe and pervasive harassment based on gender necessary to establish a hostile work environment claim.”
“[The plaintiff’s] claim rests, in large part, on incidents with no apparent relation to her gender, and she makes no effort — beyond pointing to her subjective beliefs — to demonstrate such gender-based discriminatory animus,” Gelpí stated.
“Take first [the plaintiff’s] contention that she felt [her colleague] ‘mansplained’ to her on one occasion and, throughout 2018 and 2019, treated her worse than her male colleagues. But harassment coupled with a plaintiff’s subjective belief of discrimination ‘doesn’t tell us much,’ because ‘there is a plethora of reasons’ why [her colleague] could have treated [the plaintiff] poorly ‘that have no nexus to her gender,’” Gelpí said.
