By Mitchel Wilson
In Hamner v. Ann Arundel Cnty., 117 FEP Cases 1672 (2013), the court permitted the claims of a county employee who had been transferred to the police department against the county for retaliatory failure to hire and a hostile work environment. She had been transferred, but the county claimed to only a provisional position.
Hamner worked at the county office alongside an all-female support staff under John Leopold and two other male superiors. The three males treated the women in a “demanding, intimidating, and oftentimes demeaning fashion.” Leopold frequently discussed women’s appearances and attractiveness; he once asked Hamner about a woman in a dress with “big boobs.” Leopold became fixated on Hamner’s hair and became increasingly upset when her hair would fall in front of her face. This fixation escalated …
Ms. Hamner looked down while taking notes, causing her hair to cross her brow. Mr. Leopold asked her “to get her hair out of her face.” Ms. Hamner quickly complied by putting her hair behind her ear. According to Ms. Hamner, Mr. Leopold started dictating again but then stopped abruptly, turned toward Ms. Hamner, and grabbed her by both of her upper arms, twisting her around so that she faced him. Mr. Leopold yelled into her face, “I want you to turn and face me, like this. And get your hair out of your face!”
Upset, Hamner discussed the incident with another superior, and next spoke with the County Personnel Officer (“CPO”) about the incident but refused to file a formal complaint or transfer request because she feared retaliation. The CPO told Hamner that she secured her a transfer to the police department position but the CPO contends it was only a temporary transfer. Hamner believed the new position at the police department was permanent; however they explained she was only on temporary loan until they filled the position which she could apply for. The depositions of three officers indicate that Leopold had contacted the department and told them that Hamner was not to be hired and she was not offered the position. The court determined Hamner may proceed to trial on her claim retaliation claim because; (1) she engaged in protected activity by complaining about sexual harassment; (2) her employer acted adversely by failing to hire her; and (3) the depositions of the three officers creates a material issue of fact that should go a jury on whether there was a causal connection between Leopold’s communications with the police department and their failure to hire her.
Normally Hamner’s hostile work environment would be time barred, but in this case she could bring the claim if the retaliatory transfer and failure to hire is a part of the hostile work environment conditions under the theory of continuing claim.
Hamner’s first amendment claims were dismissed because, although a complaint about sexual harassment may be protected speech, here it was clear that she was speaking about a matter of personal interest and not upon a “matter of public concern,” which would have been protected.
