Brian McNulty
Mark Carollo
April 30 1998


The case of Charlton vs. The Paramus Board of Education, et. al., came to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the United States District Court for New Jersey after the plaintiff, Charlton, sought to appeal the decision of the district court which ruled in favor of the school board. At the district court, and before that the New Jersey Supreme Court, the main focus of the case was on sexual discrimination and hostile work environment. But the central issue at the circuit court deals with Charlton's claim of retaliation. More specifically, is an employee retaliation claim against an employer still valid if the employee no longer works for that employer.

Ann Mery Charlton was a seventeen-year veteran of the Paramus School District. She had risen to the level of tenured music supervisor. Her employment was terminated, and Charlton alleged that it was because her supervisor, Janet Dime, had made sexual advances towards her which she rebuffed. Charlton also claimed that Dime "then conspired with other [lesbian teachers] to embarrass, discredit, and punish Appellant for her rejection of Dime." The tenure proceedings that followed ended with Charlton's termination.

The school board claimed that it took action against Charlton because she had spread "vicious and false rumors about the sexual preferences and sexual activities of Paramus administrators and employees." Along with this, Charlton attacked the hiring practices of the district, claiming they were influenced by the sexual persuasions of those hired and insinuated that sexual relations between supervisors and teachers were a factor in promotion decisions. The school board also took exception to the inappropriate language Charlton used when referring to administrators or teachers. Finally, there was evidence that Charlton created and implemented a plan to gather information on Dime's personal life with the purpose of humiliating her to prevent Dime from becoming the next Superintendent.

Charlton's challenges to her termination were rejected first by a state administrative board, and this decision was later affirmed by the New Jersey Superior Court and New Jersey Supreme Court. While Charlton's petition to the Supreme Court was pending, she filed a Title VII discrimination action against the district. Following this, the school board pushed to have the state board bring forth the case so she would have her teaching certification revoked. Charlton claimed that the school board's inquiry into this revocation hearing, in which the school board had no real interest since Charlton could no longer work in Paramus, was initiated in retaliation for her filing the Title VII suit. This charge was brought by Charlton to the district court.

At the district court, summary judgement was granted to the school district on the discrimination and retaliation claims. The court held that, basically, there was not enough of a case to find strong evidence of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. The retaliation claim was dismissed on the rationale that Charlton was not an employee at the time of the retaliation, so it did not constitute `unlawful employment practices' under Title VII.

When taken to the circuit court of appeals, the issue of discrimination was first examined. The circuit court upheld the decision of the district court in dismissing the discrimination and hostile work environment claims. However, it reversed the district court's decision on the retaliation claim. It stated that Charlton did not have to be an employee at the time of the alleged retaliation, which would allow her to pursue the Title VII claim.

The basis for this was that employer-employee relations do not necessarily end when employment ends. The possibility of harmful employer practices towards employees can persist even after the employee has left or been fired. The circuit court stated that "post-employment blacklisting is sometimes more damaging that on-the-job discrimination" since it can greatly affect future employment opportunities for the former employee. Such was the case with Charlton. She had no chance of ever working in the Paramus School District again, but if her teaching certificate was revoked, she would lose her livelihood. The court concluded that Congress did not intend to let harmful post-employment practices occur just because there was no specific provision for it under Title VII.

The circuit court used as precedent cases that interpreted the term `employee' broadly to include former employees. The basis was that a retaliation claim is valid just as long as the retaliation is specifically work related, or comes from the employer-employee relationship. Such cases were Passer v. American Chem Soc'y for the D.C. Circuit, and EEOC v. Cosmair Inc. for the 5th Circuit.