Name-calling by supervisor not evidence of disability discrimination
October 31, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Here comes the judge, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
A supervisor who repeatedly called an employee “Rain Man” can’t be held liable for disability discrimination or harassment according to a state appeals court.
Reason: The supervisor didn’t know the employee has a form of autism.
Thomas Mangano was hired as director of manufacturing by software firm Verity, Inc.
Steven Springsteel became his supervisor.
Mangano didn’t like it when Springsteel would call him “Rain Man” in front of co-workers.
Then, Mangano was passed over for a promotion to vice president of manufacturing and operations.
Months later, he was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism.
After receiving that diagnosis, Mangano sued Verity and Springsteel, alleging disability discrimination and “verbal harassment” based on a perceived disability in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Trial and appeals courts both ruled for the company.
FEHA states that a mental disability includes being regarded or treated by the employer as having any mental condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult.
The court said Verity showed it had legitimate business reasons for hiring a vice president from outside the company and that Mangano didn’t show those reasons were a pretext for disability discrimination.
On the harassment claim, the court said annoying or merely offensive language in the workplace isn’t actionable.
Another factor in this case: Mangano wasn’t diagnosed with Asperger’s until after he was passed over for the promotion. The company didn’t know about his disability when it made its choice for vice president.
Tags: autism, disability, discrimination
October 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
He shoulda’ gone with “Slingblade” instead of “Rainman”. It’s a little more discrete and could always have been spun to seem like it referred to the blade servers he probably worked with.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
After enough disparaging remarks, a hostile workplace could become an issue. If the EE felt that, he had no choice but to quit due to the constant disparaging remarks he could win a case due to the hostile work environment.
There is no place for disparaging comments and or name calling in the work place.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Unwanted actions have to be severe or pervasive to be recognized as Hostile Work Environment Harassment. Calling him “Rainman” is not severe and probably wasn’t pervasive. It isn’t a good idea to make fun of employees, but it isn’t necessarily against any laws.
Also, if he was “forced to quit” it would be called constructive discharge, which is nearly impossible to prove in court. Maybe “Rainman” should have taken it as a compliment to his intelligence and stopped his whining; it would have left him better off.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
From your comment I take it that name calling is your idea of employee development. In this day and age there are still idiots like you who wonder why some one comes to work with a gun and shoots ten people. I think “Raingirl” should be your nickname.
Maybe you should put forth a more compassionate side which HR should be more about.
Talk to you later honey.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I dont think that anyone in their right mind would not take “rainman” as offensive … something to sue over, I think not. Personally name calling should not be acceptable by anyone especially in a professional office.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
The point I was trying to make. Though a bit tongue in cheek.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
They escaped the bullet. The courts are littered with people that use name calling. Name calling time and again have been used as a basis for suits for discrimination, racism, age discrimination and others. A search of any credible H/R resource will hit on many cases costing employeres and companies thousands.
I would not be so quick to scoff at this employee and go back and see that one of the main reasons the employer won was simply the timing of the diagnosis. Severe and pervasive is a matter interpreted by the court. If you allow your people to use such language you are exposing yourself to a suit sooner or later. You may not be so lucky.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
There was a time when a “nickname” in your work group and amongst your peers was a sign of acceptance and endearment. It was sought after and if you didn’t have a nickname, it meant that there was nothing really about you that stood out. Nicknames are usually based on personal traits. This was the norm in the military where teamwork is job #1.
In the movie, “Rainman” the character played by Dustin Hoffman, is quirky, but loved. “Rainman” has a special talent with remembering facts and numbers and has a thing about K-Mart. In a work group, to be referred to “Rainman” could mean that you are seen as being quirky but are really good with facts and numbers.
From the article it stated that the plaintiff didn’t like being referred to as “Rainman” by his supervisor. It doesn’t say whether his co-workers referred to him as “Rainman” and whether it was “okay” for them to do so. It doesn’t say that he told his supervisor this and ask him to stop.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
As a Vet myself of three years active duty in the Army I understand that, but the Army is a very different animal and if you believe for even a split second that the supervisor meant “Rainman” as a term of endearment then . . By the way, did you happen to remember that the character’s name was Raymond not Thomas? If the name Thomas were changed slightly then maybe you would have a leg to stand on.
For example, calling him Tommy Boy like the quirky movie with Chris Farley and David Spade.
The name was, beyond a doubt meant to demean, belittle and humiliate Thomas. In addition, part of his illness makes him very uncomfortable confronting people much less a bully.
Educate yourself before your organization faces a lawsuit and looses some big money.
November 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I’ve read about this case in other places. The supervisor called him Rainman because the employee was able to recall odd numerical information from the top of his head (info the majority of us would never remember). After a few times, the employee finally told the supervisor that the reference was offensive and the supervisor apologized and stopped the name calling immediately. A few months later the employee found out he had aspergers and then sued the company. The company wasn’t liable becauses the supervisor stopped his action immediately upon notification that he was being offensive.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I agree that name calling has no place in the office. This seems an example of schoolyard bullying in a so-called adult environment. If you are insensitive to that and the effect it can have on people, what was your experience growing up? Were you ever bullied? Did you ever bully someone else? Whatever the case, we need to learn from our childhood experiences and not repeat the negative ones in the workplace.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
One person’s namecalling may be another person’s friendly way of communicating a “bond” or “closeness.” Employees must be assertive when something another does bothers them. If they communicate that they find it upsetting, the behavior should stop.
Sometime’s the other employee can apologize or explain their “nickname” and why they felt it was okay to use it.
Bullying occurs when the behavior persists even though the person stated that they clearly did not like it.
There are “wounded” people in our workforce who are “afraid” to speak up when something bothers them. They are like walking time bombs wiating for someone to set them off. They need to heal and learn to be assertive.
There are bullies in our workforce who feel that whatever they do is okay. They need to respond to those around them who set boundaries.
A company or government can’t and should not try to regulate social interactions. That would be madness. If a person says, “STOP!” or “No!”, then a boundary is set and if the behavior continues, then it is a matter of “lack of respect” for a co-worker and certainly can be disciplined.