Dorota Peterson’s case had all the makings of a classic employment discrimination claim. She alleged that she was wrongfully fired from her job at Staples because of her age (55), her Polish nationality, and retaliation for raising workplace complaints. Firing someone for age and national origin discrimination and/ retaliation is, without a doubt, unlawful under employment law. Laws like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are in place to protect employees from being wrongfully terminated based on protected characteristics or retaliation for opposing or reporting discrimination based on protected characteristics. Employers cannot hide behind false excuses to justify illegal behavior.
If Staples had fired Peterson because she was over 40, had a Polish accent, or had complained about workplace mistreatment, she might have had a strong case. But here is the thing: those reasons were not why she lost her job. Her claims crumbled when faced with an entirely different reason for her termination—a reason she could not argue away.
Peterson was fired for sexually harassing an 18-year-old coworker.
Is It Gross for a Woman in Her 50s to Rub Her Breasts on an 18-Year-Old?
Absolutely. It is not just gross and unacceptable. Let us call this behavior what it is: sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment. Under Title VII, harassment becomes unlawful when enduring the conduct is a condition of continued employment or when the behavior is severe enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find abusive. Peterson’s actions—rubbing her breasts on a teenage coworker and winking at him—clearly cross this line.
Staples had a “zero-tolerance” sexual harassment policy, and their obligation to enforce it applied to everyone, regardless of age, gender, or nationality. Peterson’s behavior violated these protections, meaning the employer had every right to fire her. Employers cannot allow such conduct to persist without opening themselves up to liability from the victims of harassment.
Peterson’s attempts to paint herself as the victim fell flat because the evidence against her was overwhelming. Staples conducted a thorough investigation, interviewing witnesses and documenting the incidents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Staples’ actions were “consistent with its policies and driven by legitimate business reasons.” Moreover, the Tenth Circuit emphasized that “being in a protected class does not shield employees from accountability for their actions.” Peterson’s firing had nothing to do with her age or nationality and everything to do with her conduct.
Best Sex Harassment Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Will My Employer Be Liable For Coworker Sexual Harassment?
- Does A Coworker’s Porn Create A Sexually Hostile Working Environment Claim?
- What Is Sexual Harassment In The Workplace?
Can an Employer Fire Someone in a Protected Class for Sexual Harassment?
Yes, employers can fire someone in a protected class for sexual harassment if they have a legitimate reason to do so. Employment laws like Title VII and the ADEA protect employees from being fired because of their race, gender, age, or other characteristics, but they do not provide immunity from workplace policies. An employer’s obligation to maintain a safe and respectful work environment applies equally to all employees, regardless of their protected status.
Best Sexually Hostile Work Environment Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- Yes, You Can Be Fired For Sending Sexually Offensive Emails
- Yes, You Can Be Fired For Sexually Harassing Multiple Women At Work
- Yes, You Can Be Fired For Not Reporting Your Boss’s Sexual Harassment
- Yes, Managers Can Be Demoted For Not Reporting Sexual Harassment To HR
What Is the McDonnell Douglas Test and Why Did Peterson Fail It?
In employment discrimination cases, courts often apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to determine whether an employee’s claims have merit. This test has three steps:
- The Employee’s Prima Facie Case: The employee must first establish a basic case of discrimination by showing they belong to a protected class, were qualified for their position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the action raises an inference of discrimination.
- The Employer’s Legitimate Reason: If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action.
- The Employee’s Evidence of Pretext: Finally, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
Peterson met the first step by demonstrating she was in protected categories (age and national origin) and suffered an adverse action (termination). However, Staples provided a clear and substantiated reason for firing her: she violated their zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy. To rebut this, Peterson needed to show evidence that Staples’ stated reason was false or that discrimination was the real motive.
The key factor is the employer’s ability to show that the termination was based on legitimate, documented reasons. In Peterson’s case, Staples conducted a thorough investigation that included interviews with the accuser and a corroborating witness. The evidence substantiated allegations that she violated the company’s zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment. This gave Staples a lawful and justifiable basis for her termination, separate from her protected characteristics.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit observed, employers are entitled to act decisively when faced with clear evidence of misconduct, even if the employee involved is in a protected class. Failing to do so could expose the employer to liability from other employees who might feel unsafe or harassed in the workplace. Simply put, workplace protections do not excuse inappropriate behavior, and legitimate enforcement of policies is not discrimination.
Peterson, representing herself, failed to understand and meet this burden. The investigation against her was well-documented, supported by witness statements, and consistent with company policy. Peterson’s claims of discrimination were speculative at best and lacked any credible evidence of pretext. Simply belonging to a protected class is not enough; employees must connect the dots between the adverse action and unlawful motives.
Best Workplace Harassment Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Yes, It Is Legal To Fire Men Who Sexually Harass Women
- Can My Employer Fire Me Without Giving a Reason?
- Can Older Employees Be Fired Because Of Diminishing Skills Or Ability?
How Can Employees Recognize and Document Sexual Harassment?
Employees may not always know if their experiences qualify as sexual harassment under the law. Recognizing harassment is the first step. Common examples include unwelcome touching, sexually explicit comments, gestures, or jokes, and requests for sexual favors. If these behaviors make your work environment hostile, intimidating, or offensive, they likely qualify as harassment.
Documentation is critical. Keep a detailed record of each incident, including dates, times, locations, and any witnesses. Save emails, text messages, or other written communications that demonstrate the behavior. If you report the harassment to HR or a manager, document that interaction too, noting who you spoke to and what was said.
What Happens During a Workplace Investigation?
When a harassment claim is made, most companies are obligated to investigate. This usually involves interviewing the accuser, accused, and any witnesses. Employers are expected to act promptly, maintain confidentiality, and document the process thoroughly. The goal is to determine whether the allegations are substantiated.
In Peterson’s case, Staples followed this process. They interviewed her accuser and a witness who corroborated the allegations. They documented the findings and allowed Peterson to respond. Despite her denials, the evidence pointed to a violation of their “zero-tolerance” policy, and Staples acted accordingly. A fair investigation, like the one conducted by Staples, strengthens an employer’s defense against claims of discrimination or retaliation while ensuring workplace policies are upheld.
What Makes Representing Yourself a Terrible Idea?
Proceeding pro se in a complex case like this is a disaster waiting to happen. Peterson’s filings were riddled with errors and unsupported allegations. She failed to cite legal authority or the record in her appellate arguments, prompting the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to note that even pro se litigants must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Her approach included vague statements like accusing Staples of “favoring” certain employees without providing evidence or context. She also neglected to address key points, like the company’s documented investigation and witness statements, leaving her arguments embarrassingly incomplete.
For example, Peterson argued that her suspension was discriminatory but failed to connect it to her protected characteristics or rebut Staples’ evidence that her suspension was based on the harassment investigation. She also ignored procedural rules, such as failing to adequately brief her arguments on appeal. Her missteps ultimately handed Staples a straightforward victory.
When you take on a corporate giant without an attorney, you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Staples had a legal team armed with experience and resources. Peterson’s decision to go it alone only made an already difficult case unwinnable.
If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated or are facing employment discrimination, you need the best attorney on your side. At Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, we focus exclusively on protecting employee rights. Do not navigate the complexities of employment law alone. Call us today to protect your rights and get the representation you deserve. Let us help you take the next step toward justice.
Best Employee’s Rights Attorney Blogs on Point:
- One More Reason Representing Yourself In Employment Discrimination Cases Is Bad
- Google Is Not A Substitute For Talking With An Employment Lawyer
- Employment Discrimination: Don’t Go It Alone
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employment discrimination and sexual harassment blog provides general information and should not be taken as legal advice. If you are facing unlawful discrimination or sex harassment at work, consult with a qualified employment lawyer to discuss your specific situation. No promises are being made regarding the outcome of any case. This employee’s rights blog is a legal advertisement designed to inform readers about employment law, wrongful termination, and their rights. If you suspect you have been wrongfully terminated, it is best to contact an attorney to protect your rights.