Judge rules innocuous incident can't support retaliation suit

Judge rules innocuous incident can't support retaliation suit Case name: Farmer v. Troy University, No. 5:17‐CV‐70 (E.D. N.C. 08/21/17).Ruling: The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed a suit against Troy University.What it means: Title IX protects an employee from reporting perceived misconduct only when that employee reasonably believed he was reporting activities prohibited by the act.Summary: Sharrell Farmer was employed by Troy University as a recruiter in its Fayetteville office. In May 2015, he complained to human resources that the local manager and her assistant had discussed “penis sizes of black and white men” with a student, and then tauntingly suggested that the student exhibit his penis.According to Farmer, word of his report apparently got out because unnamed persons subsequently engaged in retaliation by: (1) disciplining him with a written warning, (2) suspending him, (3) changing his schedule to be less favorable than that of other employees who had not filed discrimination allegations, and (4) firing him a few months later.Farmer filed a suit claiming retaliation in violation of Title IX, and the university filed a motion to dismiss.The district judge explained that an employee was protected by Title IX only if he reported activity that he reasonably believed was prohibited by that act. The judge acknowledged that the remarks reported by Farmer were offensive and inappropriate, but ruled that they were not sufficiently physically threatening or humiliating to constitute harassment under Title IX.In addition, he ruled that Farmer was not protected from retaliation because he could not have reasonably believed that he was opposing anything prohibited by Title IX when he complained about the local manager's conversation.The judge dismissed the suit.LAWSUITS & RULINGSThis regular feature summarizes recent court or agency records of interest to academic administrators. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Dean & Provost Wiley

Judge rules innocuous incident can't support retaliation suit

Dean & Provost , Volume 19 (7) – Jan 1, 2018
Free
1 page
Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/wiley/judge-rules-innocuous-incident-can-t-support-retaliation-suit-EkebeqrPHZ
Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
Copyright
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
1527-6562
eISSN
1943-7587
D.O.I.
10.1002/dap.30433
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Case name: Farmer v. Troy University, No. 5:17‐CV‐70 (E.D. N.C. 08/21/17).Ruling: The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed a suit against Troy University.What it means: Title IX protects an employee from reporting perceived misconduct only when that employee reasonably believed he was reporting activities prohibited by the act.Summary: Sharrell Farmer was employed by Troy University as a recruiter in its Fayetteville office. In May 2015, he complained to human resources that the local manager and her assistant had discussed “penis sizes of black and white men” with a student, and then tauntingly suggested that the student exhibit his penis.According to Farmer, word of his report apparently got out because unnamed persons subsequently engaged in retaliation by: (1) disciplining him with a written warning, (2) suspending him, (3) changing his schedule to be less favorable than that of other employees who had not filed discrimination allegations, and (4) firing him a few months later.Farmer filed a suit claiming retaliation in violation of Title IX, and the university filed a motion to dismiss.The district judge explained that an employee was protected by Title IX only if he reported activity that he reasonably believed was prohibited by that act. The judge acknowledged that the remarks reported by Farmer were offensive and inappropriate, but ruled that they were not sufficiently physically threatening or humiliating to constitute harassment under Title IX.In addition, he ruled that Farmer was not protected from retaliation because he could not have reasonably believed that he was opposing anything prohibited by Title IX when he complained about the local manager's conversation.The judge dismissed the suit.LAWSUITS & RULINGSThis regular feature summarizes recent court or agency records of interest to academic administrators.

Journal

Dean & ProvostWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off