By Anthony Rice
In Parrott v. Krasicky, the court denied a female police chief’s motion to dismiss a female police officer’s gender discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment.
The Plaintiff is a female officer. The Defendant, also a female, is the Chief. Unlike two male officers in the department who were promptly notified of complaints filed against them, the Plaintiff was not notified of a complaint against her until approximately six months after it was filed. The same male officers were placed on paid administrative leave while their complaints were investigated, while the Plaintiff was required to continue working without any paid administrative leave. Moreover, the Police Chief “never [ ] questioned the eligibility of male officers before granting their requests for time off” but the Chief questioned the Plaintiff’s eligibility for time off. Finally, the Chief repeatedly referred to the female officer as “that chick cop” in conversations within police headquarters and to the officer’s supervisors.
To state a claim of gender discrimination based on a hostile work environment, the plaintiff must allege disparate treatment based on gender that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
The Defendant relied on McGullam v. Cedar Graphic, Inc. to support her motion to dismiss. In McGullam, the court found that “that words such as ‘chickies’ are too trivial to contribute to a Title VII hostile work environment.” However, this court failed to see how McGullam was analogous:
McGullam was decided on summary judgment with the benefit of a full record, and is further distinguished because the use of the word “chickies” by an employee and not directed at the plaintiff stands in sharp contrast to the allegations about Defendant, who is Plaintiff’s superior and the chief of police, referring “repeatedly” to Plaintiff, one of her police officers, in police headquarters, as “chick cop.”
[G]iven the continuous conduct by Chief Krasicky producing Plaintiff’s emotional distress and humiliation, it is plausible that having to work under such circumstances while under investigation could alter one’s working conditions and interfere with one’s work performance. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the hostile work environment theory of Plaintiff’s equal protection claim will be denied.
