A recent 2021 federal sector case, Babb v. Secretary, DVA, 992 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2021), distinguished between 2 kinds of hostile environment work claims. It determined that a hostile work environment claim permitted under the Title 7 hostile environment prong including disparate treatment based upon protected class characteristics should have a different evidentiary standard than a hostile work environment claim based upon retaliation under the retaliatory prong of Title 7. The Eleventh Circuit held that the retaliatory hostile environmental claim before the court was not subject to the typical “severe and pervasive” evidence standard applied to the Title 7 hostile environment prong. Instead a retaliatory hostile environment claim should be subject to the lesser standard of “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
Babb alleged retaliation in the form of VA’s newly instituted promotions program which discriminated against her on the basis of age and gender and was VA’s affirmative retaliatory conduct after she filed an EEO charge. A clinical pharmacist, Babb alleged that in 2013 VA took away her “advanced scope” designation, which had made her eligible for promotion on the Federal Government’s General Scale from a GS-12 to a GS-13. Second, during this same time period, she was denied training opportunities and passed over for positions in the VA hospital’s anticoagulation clinic. Third, in 2014, she was placed in a...
The SP chief also dismissed the govt’s claims of mobile phone manufacturing in the state, saying only the assembly of devices was taking place with components imported from China, Taiwan and Korea ...