Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Reema Consulting Services, Inc. v. Evangeline J. Parker
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 18-1206 · judgment February 8, 2019
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Q U E S TI O N P R E S E N T E D Titl e V I I p r o vi d e s t h at, " It i s a n u nl a wf ul e m pl o y m e nt p r a cti c e t o di s c h a r g e o r ot h e r wi s e t o di s c ri mi n at e a g ai n st a n e m pl o y e e wit h r e s p e ct t o c o n diti o n s of e m pl o y m e nt, b ec a us e of s u c h i n di vi d u al’ s s e x o r t o li mit, s e g r e g at e, o r cl a s sif y a n e m pl o y e e i n a n y w a y w hi c h w o ul d d e p ri v e o r t e n d t o d e p ri v e t h e e m pl o y e e of e m pl o y m e nt o p p o rt u niti e s o r ot h e r wi s e a d v e r s el y aff e ct t h e e m pl o y e e’ s st at u s a s a n e m pl o y e e, b e c a u s e of s u c h e m pl o y e e’ s s e x." 4 2 U. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e- 2( a). A n e m pl o y e e cl ai mi n g a s e v e r e o r p e r v a si v e h o stil e w o r k e n vi r o n m e nt b e c a u s e of h e r s e x c a n o bt ai n r eli ef u n d e r Titl e V I I. S e e H a r ri s v. F o r klift S y s., I n c. , 5 1 0 U. S. 1 7, 2 1 ( 1 9 9 3). T o st at e a cl ai m u n d e r Titl e VI I f o r a h o stil e w o r k e n vi r o n m e nt b e c a u s e of s e x, t h e pl ai ntiff m u st all e g e w o r k pl a c e h a r a s s m e nt t h at ( 1) w a s “ u n w el c o m e”; ( 2) w a s b a s e d o n t h e e m pl o y e e’ s s e x; ( 3) w a s “ s uffi ci e ntl y s e v e r e o r p e r v a si v e t o alt e r t h e c o n diti o n s of e m pl o y m e nt a n d c r e at e a n a b u si v e at m o s p h e r e”; a n d ( 4) w a s, o n s o m e b a si s, i m p ut a bl e t o t h e e m pl o y e r. S e e, e. g M e rit o r S a v. B a n k, F S B v. Vi n s o n , 4 7 7 U. S. 5 7 ( 1 9 8 6); B a s s v. E. I. d u P o nt d e N e m o u r s & C o. , 3 2 4 F. 3 d 7 6 1, 7 6 5 ( 4t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3); s e e al s o E E O C v. S u n b elt R e nt al s, I n c. , 5 2 1 F. 3 d 3 0 6, 3 1 3 – 1 4 ( 4t h Ci r. 2 0 0 8). T hi s c a s e c o n c e r n s a n e m pl o y e e w h o w a s t h e s u bj e ct of a f al s e r u m o r t h at s h e r e c ei v e d a p r o m oti o n b e c a u s e s h e sl e pt wit h a s u p e r vi s o r. H e r C o m pl ai nt all e g e s t h at t h e r u m o r o ri gi n at e d d u e t o a c o w o r k e r' s j e al o u s y. Ot h e r t h a n t h e s e x u al c o nt e nt of t h e r u m o r,
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Donald James Walsh
Wright, Constable & Skeen, PA
For respondent
Daniel Aaron Tishman
Fish & Richardson PC
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 07 2019Petition DENIED.
- Jun 19 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
- May 31 2019Brief of respondent Evangeline Parker in opposition filed.
- May 09 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 19, 2019)