PHILADELPHIA – A federal appellate court recently decided that a lower court’s ruling to dismiss a former Philadelphia police sergeant’s hostile work environment claim was correct, in that the claim wasn’t supported beyond an errant text message.
A panel trio consisting of Third Circuit judges D. Brooks Smith, Theodore A. McKee and L. Felipe Restrepo ruled on Sept. 22 that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania correctly dismissed a gender-based hostile environment claim from Sgt. Danielle Alston, in her litigation against both the Philadelphia Police Department and Lieutenant Brian Dougherty.
“Danielle Alston, a former sergeant with the Philadelphia Police Department, filed suit against her immediate superior, Lt. Brian Dougherty, and the City of Philadelphia, alleging a gender-based hostile-environment claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sgt. Alston’s claims against the City were dismissed,” Smith said.
“In response to Lt. Dougherty’s motion for summary judgment, Sgt. Alston abandoned one claim, opposing only the motion seeking summary judgment on her gender-based hostile-environment claim. After the District Court granted Lt. Dougherty’s motion for summary judgment, this timely appeal followed.”
The District Court concluded that Sgt. Alston could not support her claim with evidence of an errant text message that Lt. Dougherty sent to her because there was “no evidence” suggesting that the text was sent “intentionally.”
It additionally noted that the record did not contradict Lt. Dougherty’s assertion that the text was sent by accident, and that the lieutenant apologized in both a follow-up text and in person.
Sgt. Alston argued that this was an error as the incident was “sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment,” and pointed to her own testimony that she was “shocked.”
However, the Third Circuit was not persuaded.
“Alston’s subjective view of the errant text does not create an issue of fact about Lt. Dougherty’s state of mind when the text was transmitted. Although she is correct that a single incident may be severe enough to create a hostile environment, the severity of the sole, misfired text at issue here does not shed light on whether Dougherty acted intentionally,” Smith stated.
The Court then turned to Sgt. Alston’s second contention that the District Court erred when it concluded that Alston failed to establish the existence of respondeat superior liability for the hostile environment created by some of the other sergeants and officers in the 35th District to which she was assigned.
In the end, the Third Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court.
“We have carefully reviewed the record before us, and conclude that the evidence establishes that some other officers were aware of some gender-based harassment of which Sgt. Alston complains. But the record does not show that Lt. Dougherty had actual or constructive notice of the gender-based harassment directed at Sgt. Alston,” Smith stated.
“While Alston testified that she had ongoing conversations with Dougherty, she did not spell out the substance of those conversations and she admitted that she did not inform him of the other officers’ harassing comments related to her clothing. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it determined that Sgt. Alston failed to show a basis for holding Lt. Dougherty liable. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-2906
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-02362
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com