In sexual harassment case,
plaintiff failed to establish an objectively hostile work environment.
McKenzie v. Milwaukee
County, 381 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. August 23, 2004) - This is a Title VII, Equal
Protection Clause and First Amendment action alleging sexual harassment,
disparate treatment and retaliation. In 1994, Kerri McKenzie began her
employment as a deputy
sheriff. In 1999, she began working as an undercover detective in the Drug
Enforcement Unit, which was part of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB).
McKenzie was the lead investigator in a large-scale undercover drug
investigation when George Paras became the head of CIB. McKenzie was friends
with Paras's predecessor, Joe Delaney, who did not get along with Paras.
McKenzie feared that this might cause problems for her and so she kept a diary of
all interactions with Paras. According to McKenzie, she alleges that Paras
was harassing her about the status of her investigation because she is a
woman. After the investigation was successfully concluded, Paras
congratulated McKenzie. But a couple of months later, Captain Rodney Richards
told her that she was transferred out of CIB due to her "poor attitude." She
told Richards that she had been keeping a book for the last few months on
her interactions with command staff. Richards became angry because he
thought she was trying to intimidate him into reconsidering her transfer. An
investigation ensued and McKenzie received a written reprimand for
attempting to intimate or coerce Richards into allowing her to stay in CIB.
When she was transferred out of CIB, she suffered no loss of pay or
benefits. The district court granted summary judgment for the County. The
Seventh Circuit affirms. McKenzie's Title VII sexual harassment claim fails
because she failed to establish an objectively hostile work environment.
Some of the evidence presented involved other female employees -- and the
impact of "second-hand" harassment is not as great as harassment directed at
McKenzie herself. Also, the incidents involving McKenzie mainly consist of
occasions where Paras was not as friendly as McKenzie thought he should have
been. Finally, there is no evidence that Paras's oversight of McKenzie's
undercover investigation was harassment based on gender. Next, McKenzie
alleges that she was subjected to a demotion based on gender in violation of
Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. The Seventh Circuit disagrees.
Her lateral transfer was not an adverse employment action. Alternatively,
even if it were a demotion, she failed to show that a comparable male was
treated more favorably. Finally, with respect to her First Amendment claim,
the book she kept was a personal expression rather than a matter of public
concern. Therefore, she is not entitled to constitutional protection.
