Suits In The WorkPlace

Rash Acts: Poison Ivy for Administrative Professionals Day?

Today is Administrative Professionals Day, a day when we ought to recognize and appreciate those folks in the workplace who, in general, keep us out of trouble on a daily basis.  It’s also a day when we should remember to show the respect and appreciation we have for those professionals.

Apparently, Scott Adkins didn’t get the memo.  In a recent 8th Circuit decision, Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., the court considered whether a supervisor’s daily use of a peephole to spy on female employees in the bathroom constituted sexual harassment.  According to the decision: 

The manager of the facility and the appellants’ supervisor, Scott Adkins, remodeled this restroom in 1997. During the remodeling, Adkins constructed a peephole through one wall in order to view Cottrill while she was in the women’s restroom. On the restroom side of the wall, Adkins installed a two-way mirror. The back of the mirror was covered with black paper except for the portion aligned with the peephole. The peephole went through the restroom wall to an adjoining room that Adkins used as his personal breakroom. There Adkins concealed the peephole with a bookshelf and paneling. Between 1997 and 2001,Adkins used the peephole to observe Cottrill in the restroom two or three times a day.

As if that weren’t enough, the plaintiff also alleged medical problems associated with her use of the bathroom:

Cottrill encountered a sticky substance on the toilet seat in the restroom several times between 2000 and 2002. During each year from 1998 to 2002, Cottrill suffered from rashes from approximately April until early September.

When the peephole was discovered, the employer installed a video camera in the breakroom to catch Adkins in the act, which they did.  He confessed, was fired and was reported to law enforcement officials.

Interestingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer in this case, ruling that the events did not create a hostile environment for Cottrill:

We first consider Cottrill’s hostile work environment claim. Cottrill was not aware of the peeping, stating in her deposition that she did not know that Adkins was viewing her. Because she did not subjectively perceive the peeping, Cottrill may not rely on the peeping to establish that her work environment was hostile.

In short, because she didn’t know about it, the court reasoned, she wasn’t being harassed.  The court went on to say that, although she was aware of the substance she believed was causing her rash (which she later asserted was poison ivy when a baggie with decomposed leaves and rubber gloves was found in – you guessed it – the breakroom), those events did not give rise to a hostile environment claim because they were not sufficiently severe or pervasive.

As a defense lawyer, I believe the court got this right on the law.  However, although they didn’t get to it in the opinion, I’ve got to believe that the court’s decision was influenced by MFA’s prompt response to this once they found out about it.  They started an investigation within an hour, caught the guy on tape, and rebuilt the entire wall within a couple of days.  Moreover, they fired him and turned him over to the police.  I suspect that if they had turned a blind eye or slapped Adkins on the wrist, we might have seen a different result.  But that’s just me.

Anyway, take a lesson on this Administrative Professionals Day from Mr. Adkins – a lesson on how not to treat your employees.