To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff must typically show that there is unwelcome conduct that is based on the plaintiff’s protected characteristic, which is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the plaintiff’s conditions of employment, and that the employment action is imputable to the employer. When considering whether there is a hostile work environment, courts look to the totality of the circumstances, including the number of incidents, their frequency, and the content of the underlying behavior.
In Knott v. McDonald’s Restaurant of Maryland, Inc., No. 21-cv-00592-LKG (D. Md. July 27, 2023), a Maryland federal court granted summary judgment in favor of McDonald’s Corporation of Maryland, Inc. regarding a former employee’s claims of harassment and retaliation.
Frashard Knott worked for McDonald’s as a Crew Member/Cashier at a Charles County location from May 2019 until his termination on July 2, 2020.
Knott claimed that his supervisor made inappropriate comments using sexually derogatory, homophobic, and foul language. Knott also alleged that the supervisor removed him from the work schedule after she made homophobic comments, that the supervisor referred to him with homophobic slurs to other employees, and that the supervisor initiated a rumor that Knott wanted to have a sexual relationship with a male colleague. He alleged that at least one other employee claimed to have heard the supervisor’s comments.
After Knott complained to human resources and management about the alleged conduct, the company transferred Knott to another location. Knott never reported to work at the new location and, on July 2, 2020, he was terminated. Knott then filed a charge of discrimination and the lawsuit followed.
The district court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material facts and the moving party (here, the company) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
McDonald’s argued, for our purposes here, that the undisputed material facts showed that Knott did not and could not show that the supervisor’s conduct was unwelcome or severe or pervasive, that there was no causal relationship between Knott’s removal from the work schedule and any protected activity, and that McDonald’s had a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for terminating Knott’s employment.
The court agreed that the alleged harassment was neither severe nor pervasive, that there was not the requisite link between his termination and protected activity, and that the company acted based on a non-pretextual legitimate reason when terminating Knott’s employment. While Knott presented evidence of some derogatory language, he could not rely upon conduct that he was not aware of. According to the opinion, the supervisor’s calling Knott a homophobic slur, starting a rumor regarding a sexual relationship (an allegation Knott learned only from others), and the reports of others that the supervisor twice referred to Knott with a homophobic slur (the comments to others rather than Knott) did not satisfy the standards for a viable hostile work environment claim. Knott’s lack of personal knowledge regarding much of the alleged discriminatory behavior meant that the court did not consider those things when determining whether the conduct was severe or pervasive.
With respect to the retaliatory removal from the schedule and termination claims, the court agreed that Knott had not engaged in protected activity before being removed from the schedule. His complaints came after that decision had been made. With respect to the termination of his employment, McDonald’s successfully argued that Knott was fired because he did not report for orientation at the new location.
Notwithstanding the successful outcome for the company here, the use of homophobic slurs and the spreading of rumors (sexual or otherwise) in the workplace should not be tolerated.