|
|
|
|
|
        |
|
|
 |
JUDICIAL UPDATES Necessary Personnel Management Actions Do Not Support Employee’s Disability Harassment Plaintiff Charlene Roby, a “stellar employee” with defendant McKesson HBOC, Inc. for 25 years until she developed a panic disorder in 1998, was fired for excessive absenteeism. She claimed that the absences were all related to her panic disorder, an illness that she had disclosed to her employer. Roby sued her employer and her supervisor, Karen Schoener, for common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, as well as FEHA statutory claims for disparate treatment based on mental disability, disability discrimination/failure to accommodate, and hostile work environment/harassment. The jury found in favor of Roby, awarding millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. McKesson and Schoener challenged the harassment verdict as unsupported by substantial evidence (the only portion of the ruling that was published). The court affirmed that the correct standard of review of a jury’s decision on claims of unlawful harassment based upon a hostile work environment is the substantial evidence test. The harassment must consist of conduct “outside the scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives.” The appellate court concluded that the Legislature did not intend for commonly necessary personnel management actions, such as hiring and firing, job assignments, office or work station assignments, promotion, assignment of supervisory functions, etc., to come within the meaning of harassment. After applying these principles to Roby’s case, the appellate court concluded that most of the alleged harassment was conduct that fell within the scope of business and management duties. The conduct included selecting Roby’s job assignments, ignoring her at staff meetings, portraying her job responsibilities negatively, and reprimanding her in connection with her performance. Accordingly, the court reversed the awards against the defendants that were based on the claims of harassment. (Roby v. McKesson HBOC, Court of Appeal Case Nos. C047617 and C048799, December 26, 2006.)
NEXT: Employees May Have Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Office and Workplace Computer
|
|
|
|
|
 |
