By Kasey Burton
In Morshed v County of Lake, the Court held that years of slurs and constant denigration were enough to allow Police Officer Morshed to pursue a national origin harassment claim even though he lost no pay or benefits.
Officer Morshed was disciplined multiple times and demoted. He endured years of ethnic slurs, harassing emails, and mocking of his Iranian descent. He filed an EEOC Complaint regarding the harassment, and was subjected to retaliatory actions, including increased scrutiny of his actions and denial of overtime hours. Officer Morshed was ultimately terminated after he refused to cooperate in an investigation regarding a draft crime report. Upon his firing, he filed suit for harassment on the basis of national origin, national origin discrimination, retaliation, and §1983.
Officer Morshed relied upon evidence of the harassment, along with his struggle to promote to sergeant after his demotion. He discussed the involvement of not only his co-workers, but his superiors, as well. The County argued that Officer Morshed did not offer sufficient evidence to support any of his claims. The County also argued that, when confronted with printouts of the harassing emails he received, Officer Morshed stated that he was not offended by their content.
The Court upheld Officer Morshed’s harassment claim, but held that his other claims fell short. Officer Morshed was constantly harassed on a regular basis by co-workers and superiors alike. Officer Morshed testified that “he believed that the conduct was just accepted in the Sheriff’s Department and he should not say anything if he wanted to keep his job.” Though he lost no pay or other benefits, the consistency of the harassment altered the conditions of employment.
[E]ven if Plaintiff never lost pay, benefits, or other opportunities as a result of the repeated ethnic slurs by his supervisors and co-workers, the County could still be liable for discrimination as a result of the hostile work environment. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the severe or pervasive harassment itself that alters the conditions of employment. “[T]he language of Title VII is not limited to ‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination… [t]he phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ evinces a congressional intent ‘to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’ in employment.”
Officer Morshed’s poor work performance, including a below average annual evaluation, led the court to dismiss his other claims.
Editor’s Note [Erica Shelley Nelson]: This case reiterates the principal that an Employee does not have to show that he or she suffered a tangible or economic consequence as a result of harassment occurring in the workplace. If the harassment on its own is sufficiently severe or pervasive, then an Employee can have a viable harassment claim.
