When a Human Resources professional brings a discrimination claim, his former employer will be on high alert. But the recently decided case, Grdinich v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, No. 16-03070, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74892 (E.D. Pa. May 17) (Pappert, J.), raises the question of whether every discussion by an HR professional in the workplace rises to the level of ”protected activity” under the anti-discrimination laws.
EEO Officer Discusses Complaints With Supervisor
Rosanna Grdinich was the Equal Employment Opportunity officer for the Housing Authority from approximately 1999 to 2008. She was responsible for fielding and investigating discrimination complaints from Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) employees. As part of Grdinich’s job, in late summer, early fall 2008, she advised one of her supervisors, Carl Greene, that he was the subject of three anonymous phone complaints of harassment. Grdinich claims that Greene did not respond, but rather simply walked away from her and that this was the last direct communication that she had with him during her employment. Grdinich never opened an investigation into the anonymous calls because she subsequently learned that none of the three women were still employed by the PHA.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
