Call The Right Attorney™
No Fee Guarantee

The Complex Interaction of Silence and Consequences in the Workplace

Many employees work for a boss, manager, or supervisor who treats them well and has given them opportunities to succeed. That type of leadership instills a willingness to work hard and produce results. However, should that loyalty prevent an employee from reporting bad or unlawful conduct committed by that boss, manager, or supervisor?

In the legal arena of employment discrimination, the case of Singmuongthong v. Bowen, (No. 21-3021, 2023 WL 5030095, 7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) presents a compelling scenario that raises important questions about the repercussions of silence in the face of workplace misconduct. This analysis critically examines the case’s core issue of failure to report sexual harassment and its impact on the employee’s claim of national origin and race/color discrimination in the context of the denial of a promotion.

Sisawat Singmuongthong was employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections from 1998 to 2018, working his way up from a correctional officer to an assistant warden. He identifies as a tan-skinned Asian man of Laotian national origin. His career trajectory saw him at the Sheridan Correctional Center as a correctional officer until 2013, followed by a promotion to lieutenant. In 2016, he became the assistant warden of operations at the Kewanee Life Skills Re-Entry Center. Trouble arose when the warden, Anthony Williams, faced sexual misconduct allegations in 2018 and was subsequently terminated. During the investigation, a critical lapse was identified; Singmuongthong had neglected to report instances of Williams’ inappropriate sexual behavior, a responsibility integral to maintaining a professional and respectful work environment. Additionally, concerns were raised about his engagement in social activities, notably spending an excessive amount of time at bars in the company of subordinate staff.

An investigation into an unrelated allegation of sexual harassment led to Singmuongthong’s termination. He pursued legal action, asserting national origin and race discrimination claims due to the failure to promote him, ultimately focusing solely on the promotion aspect during the appeal.

How do you prove a case of discrimination under Title VII?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents an employer from discriminating against employees based on the employees’ race/color, gender, national origin, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Thus, under Title VII, employers cannot base any employment decision on these protected classes. This includes decisions such as hiring, promoting, pay rates, and firing.

To substantiate a claim of discrimination under Title VII where direct evidence of discrimination is not available, the McDonnell Douglasburden-shifting framework, as established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 1973), is often employed. This framework necessitates the employee to demonstrate that they are a member of a protected class, met their employer’s legitimate expectations, suffered an adverse employment action, and establish that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Singmuongthong’s case hinged on his assertion of national origin and race discrimination due to the denial of a promotion. The McDonnell Douglasframework would place the burden on Singmuongthong to establish these elements. Importantly, if the employee is able to establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. In this case, the Department pointed to his failure to report sexual harassment by a person in authority, along with other questionable decisions.

After doing so, the burden shifted back to Singmuongthong, the employee, to present evidence that the proffered reason is mere pretext, intended to cover up underlying discriminatory motives.

Best National Origin Discrimination Law Firm Blogs on Point:

Can failing to report sexual harassment by a manager be a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to deny a promotion?

It is important to initially understand that the business judgment rule is a legal principle often invoked in employment discrimination cases, including those falling under Title VII. It provides employers with a level of protection when their decisions are challenged as pretextual, meaning that the employer’s stated reason for an adverse employment action (such as termination or denial of promotion) is alleged to be a cover-up for discriminatory motives.

In Title VII cases, the business judgment rule acknowledges that employers are generally entitled to make legitimate business decisions, even if those decisions end up being wrong or arguably better option were available. It recognizes that courts should not second-guess every management decision but rather focus on determining if discrimination played a role in the decision-making process. The rule serves to strike a balance between protecting employees’ rights and recognizing the employer’s prerogative to manage their business.

While Title VII doesn’t explicitly address the scenario of failing to report sexual harassment as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to deny a promotion, the situation involves complex considerations.

Employers have a responsibility to ensure a safe and respectful work environment, which includes addressing and preventing sexual harassment. Failing to report such misconduct may be seen as a breach of an employee’s duty to contribute to a workplace free from harassment.

From the employer’s perspective, promotion decisions often involve assessing an employee’s fitness for leadership roles, which includes evaluating their judgment, decision-making skills, and adherence to company policies. An employee who fails to report instances of sexual harassment involving a superior may raise concerns about their ability to effectively manage difficult situations, ensure employee well-being, and uphold the company’s values.

Therefore, a very good argument could be made that an employer’s decision to deny a promotion based on the failure to report sexual harassment is not inherently discriminatory but is instead a reflection of an employee’s overall suitability for a leadership role. However, each case must be evaluated individually, taking into account factors such as the severity of the harassment, the context in which it occurred, the employee’s role, and the company’s policies. Moreover, the employer must uniformly apply the same rules and decisions to employees of all races, genders, national origins, and LGBTQAI status.

In this case, Singmuongthong argued that it was standard practice to promote the assistant warden to warden and point to five examples. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument, holding:

The five comparators identified by the plaintiff provide evidence that a number of assistant wardens received promotions to the position of warden. But … none of those five persons are proper comparators at all, because the plaintiff does not assert that any of those persons had been found to have been implicated in misconduct. … That investigation revealed that the warden committed misconduct, and the same investigation also caused the employer to conclude that the plaintiff had poor judgment. Bowen testified that the investigation revealed that the plaintiff failed to report inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature and spent too much time at bars with subordinate staff. … Because the plaintiff has not argued that any of the assistant warden comparators had been implicated in misconduct prior to their promotion to the warden position, the plaintiff has not identified similarly-situated individuals treated differently. In fact, the other assistant warden at Kewanee, Jennifer Parrack, a Caucasian, was also not considered for the warden position because the Williams investigation had led to concerns with her judgment as well.

Id. at *4.

While there is some loyalty issues and potentially fear of retaliation that may prevent a manager from reporting his boss for sexual harassment or having sex with a subordinate, the employer has an obligation to protect the workplace for women by preventing sexual harassment. Given the choice of promoting someone who failed to report sexual harassment and someone that had not failed to report it, it is clearly within the reasonable realm of being a business decision not to promote the manager who remained silent. Indeed, it is in my humble opinion the right decision.

Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:

What should I do if I think that I was denied a promotion or wrongfully fired based on my race?

Singmuongthong’s case serves as a reminder that legal representation is a key asset in addressing claims of workplace discrimination. The framework’s demand for evidence and demonstration of pretext underscores the importance of engaging skilled professionals who can guide employees through these intricacies.

Amid the intricacies of employment law, securing legal representation is pivotal. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, offers help for individuals to navigate the complexities of employment discrimination claims and wrongful termination actions in the workplace. The McDonnell Douglas framework’s burden-shifting nature underscores the necessity of a strong legal strategy and informed counsel to traverse the legal landscape effectively. And at Spitz, you can get the all the legal help and resources you need without paying any money out of your pocket. (Read: What is the Spitz No Fee Guarantee?). If you are not sure of your legal rights, it would be best to call the right attorney to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

Best Employment Law Attorney Blogs on Point:


This website’s discussion of employment discrimination law is an advertisement. The materials available on this page, including information about national origin, race, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment, are provided for informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice. If you believe you have experienced wrongful termination or a denial of promotion, we recommend reaching out to our experienced attorneys for guidance on your specific employment law issue. It’s important to understand that using or navigating this employment law website or any linked content does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The legal opinions expressed on this site represent the views of the individual lawyer and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Spitz Law Firm, Brian Spitz, or any other individual attorney.

"" "