10th Circuit Supports Termination of Worker Who Threatened Boss

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the termination of a social worker after an investigation revealed that she made serious threats against her boss and further found that the social worker did not produce sufficient evidence to support her claims of age and sex discrimination.

Fran Howell was a social worker employed by the New Mexico Department of Aging and Long Term Services. In July of 2005 Howell transferred to the Adult Protective Services Division in order to avoid the allegedly harassing behavior of her supervisor, Matthew Thompson. However, Thompson became regional manager for APSD in January 2006 and Howell again reported to him. In June 2006 APSD investigated and found that threats by Howell had made Thompson fearful and put other employees in an “untenable working environment.” APSD requested Howell’s termination, but at about that same time Howell submitted a letter of resignation stating that her relationship with Thompson was negative and that her differences with Thompson were irreconcilable. Howell then sued, claiming discrimination on several grounds, including age and sex, and retaliation. Howell claimed that Thompson harassed her by, among other things, requiring her to provide doctor’s notes when sick, forcing her to seek approval for deviation from her normal schedule, rating her performance unacceptable, threatening corrective action to address work and attendance issues, requesting work outside her normal duties, and using “informants” to spy on her.

Howell relied on four pieces of evidence to prove Thompson created a hostile work environment based on age or sex: two phone interviews conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a document (unsigned and unauthenticated) supposedly written by a supervisor at APSD, a handwritten sheet of notes and her negative performance appraisal. Howell also submitted an affidavit alleging discriminatory comments made by Thompson.

APSD moved for summary judgment on all of Howell’s claims, but Howell only responded to the age and sex claims. Ruling in favor of APSD, the trial court found that the case really involved a “personality conflict” and issues with performance, and commented that the evidence relied on by Howell “was either unreliable and inadmissible, or simply not probative of illegal discrimination.” The 10th Circuit affirmed.

As to the sex and discrimination claims, the 10th Circuit rejected much of the offered evidence as inadmissible and observed that other evidence, such as Howell’s resignation letter, suggested that the real problem between Howell and Thompson “was either a supervisory issue or a personality conflict.” The Court also noted that “[t]here is no evidence that APSD did not honestly believe the results of the investigation or that it failed to act in good faith upon its belief.” This case is a helpful reminder of the importance of conducting an unbiased, thorough and well-documented investigation into allegations of employee misconduct before imposing disciplinary action.

Howell v. New Mexico Department of Aging & Long Term Services, 10th Cir., No. 10-2020 (Oct. 12, 2010).