ILNews

7th Circuit affirms dismissal of hostile work environment claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a woman failed to prove that she was subject to a hostile work environment at Ball State University.

In Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, et al., No. 08-3568, Maetta Vance claimed that her co-workers’ racially charged statements along with unfavorable treatment by her superiors created a hostile work environment.

Vance’s complaint stems from incidents that began in 2001, when Saundra Davis, her co-worker in the University Dining Services catering department, allegedly slapped Vance in the back of the head without provocation. Vance orally complained to her supervisors, but because Davis soon transferred to another department, she did not pursue the matter.

Around the same time, Bill Kimes became Vance’s supervisor. She said Kimes refused to shake her hand when they first met, used a gruff tone of voice with her, and made her feel unwelcome. The Circuit Court held that while evidence exists to support that Kimes was generally difficult to work with, there is no cause to believe he treated her differently than others because of her race, and Vance admitted in her deposition that she had never heard him say anything about her race.

In 2005, Davis returned to Vance’s department, and on September 23, 2005, the two had an altercation in the elevator. A few days later, Vance heard from a fellow employee that another co-worker, Connie McVicker, used a racial epithet to refer to Vance and African-American students on campus.

On September 26, 2005, Vance complained orally to her supervisor about McVicker’s statements, and on October 17, 2005, she called University Compliance to request a complaint form. While requesting the document, Vance again complained about McVicker’s racially offensive comments and, for the first time, informed Ball State that Davis had slapped her four years earlier. In early November, Vance submitted a written complaint detailing McVicker’s comments and the elevator incident with Davis.

Ball State investigated the racial epithet and recommended that Kimes give McVicker a written warning due to the seriousness of the allegation. Typically, the university issues a verbal warning for a first offense and a written warning for a second offense. Kimes issued a written warning to McVicker, but was unable to discipline her when Vance alleged McVicker had subsequently called her another racial epithet because there were no witnesses to support Vance’s claim.

Over the course of several years, Vance lodged multiple complaints against her co-workers, stating that they made faces at her, stared at her, and slammed pots and pans when she was nearby. But the Circuit Court held that a hostile work environment claim requires a consideration of all the circumstances because, in the end, it is the employer’s liability that is at issue, not the liability of particular employees. In Vance’s case, the court held she did not prove Ball State was negligent because the university did investigate her claims.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT