HOUSTON – A former employee of a Houston-based energy company has again failed to convince a court that his former employer retaliated against him for reporting harassment following the messy end of a mostly on-premises extramarital affair.
A three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for Texas' 1st District affirmed a lower court ruling that Jeff Vanderhurst failed to prove his case against Statoil Gulf Services.
"Vanderhurst alleged that Statoil removed him as the leader of a high-profile project in retaliation for reporting his co-worker’s threats and that Statoil did nothing to prevent his co-worker from continuing to harass him, which made working conditions so intolerable that he was forced to resign," the appeals court panel said in a memorandum opinion handed down Jan. 25.
"We hold that Statoil conclusively negated the existence of a causal connection between Vanderhurst reporting the harassment and Statoil removing him from the project. We further hold that Vanderhurst’s working conditions were not sufficiently intolerable to support his claims for hostile work environment and constructive discharge. Therefore, we affirm."
The appeals court panel was made up of Justices Evelyn Keyes, Harvey G. Brown and Russell Lloyd.
Vanderhurst had appealed Statoil's successful motion summary judgment granted in 2016 by the trial court that dismissed his claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
Vanderhurst sued Statoil for retaliation, constructive discharge and hostile work environment following the end of his 2012 six-month-long "extra-marital affair with a younger female co-worker", geologist Susie Irvine, a UK expat, according to the appeals court opinion. Vanderhurst was supposed to be mentoring his co-worker while he was having the affair with her, according to the background portion of the appeals court decision.
"In company parlance, Vanderhurst was Irvine’s 'Statoil buddy,' the background portion of the opinion said.
"The two had adjoining desks and worked on the same team on the 10th floor. The affair took place largely on Statoil premises during working hours and adversely affected their job performance. Vanderhurst admitted that at times he was not as focused on his work as he should have been."
In November 2012, while the affair was still going and "before the Statoil leadership team knew about the affair," Vanderhurst was passed over for a promotion for underperforming in "three specific behavioral areas," the opinion said. "(1) he had not shown the ability to function and collaborate on a team, (2) he had not demonstrated that he could coach and mentor junior employees, and (3) there were concerns that data and analysis conducted by him were not properly made available for others to use," the opinion said.
Vanderhurst ended the affair the following month and Irvine "did not take it well," the opinion said. Irvine "threatened to physically harm him and his wife and to ruin his career by accusing him of sexual misconduct," threats Vaderhurst reported to Statoil's human resources department, according to the opinion.
Statoil HR told them both to "act professionally and stay away from each other", Irvine was moved to a work area about 200 feet away from Vanderhurst, she was assigned to a different team and the two never worked with each other again, according to the opinion.
"Irvine did, however, continue to walk by Vanderhurst's work station multiple times a day and stare at him during work meetings, which Vanderhurst perceived as continuing harassment and reported to HR," the opinion said.
Vanderhurst was removed as the leader of two projects the following January and February in part because he had interviewed with a competitor and there was concern that work could continue should Vanderhurst leave Statoil, according to the opinion. By that time, Vanderhurst had already accepted a job, as well as a signing bonus, from the competitor but delayed the start date for his new job "so he could collect a long-term incentive bonus from Statoil first," the opinion said.
Vanderhurst went on a family vacation and, once the long-term incentive bonus had been deposited into his bank account, "Vanderhurst promptly resigned without providing any notice," the opinion said. Vanderhurst then filed his lawsuit against Statoil, alleging he'd been passed over a promotion and was removed from projects in retaliation for complaining to HR, according to the opinion.
Vanderhurst also alleged that Statoil "made his work environment intolerable by failing to prevent Irvine from continuing to harass him," the opinion said.
In its March 2016 motion for summary judgment, Statoil claimed there was no connection between Vanderhurst's reports to HR and "Statoil's alleged retaliation and that Vanderhurst's working conditions were not sufficiently intolerable to support his claims for hostile working environment and constructive discharge," the opinion said.
The trial court agreed and so did the appeals court.
"We have already held that Vanderhurst has failed to show harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to prove to a hostile work environment," the appeals court said in its opinion. "Because Vanderhurst's evidence does not support a finding of a hostile work environment, it does not support a finding of a constructive discharge either."