Stewart v. Federal Communications Commission
Civil Action No. 2015-0057
| D.D.C. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Sharon K. Stewart, an OCBO employee at the FCC, observed a male colleague (John Finnie) viewing pornography on his office computer beginning in 2009; on some occasions other men joined him. An OIG report later confirmed Finnie’s use of an FCC computer to view and store pornographic material.
- Stewart alleges a hostile work environment based on those viewings and contends supervisors retaliated after she filed EEO complaints by (a) removing her substantive duties on annual Section 610 Reports and (b) withholding discretionary bonuses in 2012 and 2015.
- In 2012 Stewart had a heated meeting with supervisor Thomas Reed, used profanity, and received an oral admonishment upheld on appeal; she did not receive an OCBO bonus that year. Reed later proposed a 7-day suspension in 2015 for failure to provide a requested document; that was reduced to a Letter of Counseling, and Stewart did not receive a 2015 bonus.
- Stewart’s Section 610 Report work had been a long-standing responsibility; after an October 2012 meeting with supervisor Carolyn Fleming‑Williams (three days after Stewart filed EEO complaints), Stewart’s role on those reports effectively ceased and reports went unpublished for years.
- The FCC moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the FCC on the hostile‑work‑environment claim and on the retaliation claims tied to the denied bonuses, but denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim concerning removal of Section 610 Report duties because genuine disputes of material fact remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pornographic viewing in adjacent cubicle created a Title VII hostile work environment | Stewart: frequent, overt pornography viewings (and group viewings) created a sex‑based hostile work environment | FCC: viewings were not directed at Stewart or motivated by sex; no sexist remarks or other gender‑targeted conduct | Court: No hostile environment — plaintiff failed to show the conduct was directed at her or motivated by sex; summary judgment for FCC |
| Whether denial of 2012 bonus was retaliatory | Stewart: bonus withheld in retaliation for EEO activity | FCC: withheld because Stewart was disciplined (oral admonishment) during evaluation period | Court: FCC’s non‑retaliatory reason was legitimate; Stewart failed to show pretext; summary judgment for FCC |
| Whether denial of 2015 bonus was retaliatory | Stewart: denial tied to prior EEO complaints/retaliation | FCC: withheld because of disciplinary action (proposed suspension downgraded to counseling) for failure to comply with supervisor’s document request | Court: FCC’s non‑retaliatory reason was legitimate; Stewart failed to show pretext; summary judgment for FCC |
| Whether removal of Section 610 Report duties was retaliatory and adverse | Stewart: duties removed shortly after she filed EEO complaints and after supervisor criticized her work — action was adverse and retaliatory | FCC: work declined due to shifting priorities and concerns about report errors; not retaliatory nor materially adverse | Court: Triable issues exist as to (a) whether the reassignment was materially adverse and (b) whether FCC’s explanation is pretext; summary judgment denied on this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Coastal Int’l Sec., Inc., 275 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (elements for hostile work environment claim)
- Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (harassment must be linked to protected characteristic; insubordination can justify discipline)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (pornography can support Title VII claim if aimed at plaintiff because of sex)
- Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2003) (sex‑based remarks and conduct targeted at plaintiff support hostile‑environment claim)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation requires a materially adverse action that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (retaliation framework and pretext analysis)