It's not sex discrimination to require a receptionist to make the boss's coffee

A couple of weeks ago, the Feminist Law Professors blog posted a criticism about a recent Title VII (sex discrimination) case. I disagreed with the article's conclusion and composed a brief comment, but a moderator decided not to post it. So I'll post an expanded version now, and, if anybody there notices, they're welcome to come on over and wipe the floor with me. I don't moderate comments here.

The case: Plaintiff was a newly hired receptionist whose boss required her to bring him coffee. She refused. She was fired, and she sued for gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. The court sided with the boss, ruling that plaintiff had not alleged enough objectionable conduct to go to trial, and the case was dismissed (PDF).

I think the ruling was just fine, because the plaintiff was a bad fit for the job, and she had an unrealistic view of how much say she had in changing the job's requirements. Then, when she didn't get her way, she cried foul, using a tortured theory of sex discrimination.

Kathryn Stanchi, a Temple Law professor, had a much different view. Stanchi took the court to task for what she believes was a shallow analysis of the issue, an analysis that perpetuates "troubling and ingrained sexual stereotypes." One of Stanchi's problems with the decision is how the plaintiff was fired:

The plaintiff was fired 9 minutes after sending an email telling her boss that while she would get coffee for guests of the company, she did not expect that her job as receptionist and data entry clerk involved serving beverages to her male colleagues every day. Nine minutes! Talk about a short fuse.

Actually, the plaintiff was fired after several warnings, after a "make coffee" task was added to her daily work calendar, and after her supervisors had made it clear that making coffee for the boss (not her "colleagues") was an expected part of her job. Furthermore, her bosses allege, she was simply a lousy receptionist. She didn't transfer phone calls properly, she put mailing labels on packages incorrectly, and, though she was a customer service representative, she couldn't pronounce people's names.

And that e-mail message where she said she would be happy to fetch coffee for customers? Her bosses counter that she generally failed to do so.

Stanchi's next problem with the decision is that the judge didn't analyze the case deeply enough:

The judge never asks why it is acceptable for a receptionist/data entry clerk to be asked to get coffee. Women do that job (mostly), and women get coffee. End of (tautological) story.

Stanchi's issue with the decision, if I have it right, goes as follows: The judge decided the MSJ on the ground that no previous receptionist at this office had objected to making coffee. But because all the previous receptionists were women, and receptionist jobs in general are almost always filled by women, the judge should not have rested his decision there, because it would logically follow that no woman could ever experience sex discrimination if she's working in a job that is almost always exclusively filled by women.

I think Stanchi is missing the point.

I mean, I can't help asking myself after reading her commentary: Has Stanchi ever held a secretarial job? When you're a receptionist, making coffee for the office is par for the course. At least, that's what I've seen in my 15-plus years of experience in the secretarial trenches, on both coasts and in multiple industries. It doesn't matter whether you're female or male, though male receptionists are more likely to be called "interns" or "clerks." It doesn't matter whether part of your job is data entry because the office is small and everybody has to multi-task a little. The receptionist is at the bottom of the office totem pole, and so, of all the support staff in the office, the receptionist usually wins the task of making the boss's coffee.

Receptionist jobs are entry-level jobs. It's the type of job you get because you're young, or you haven't any other office experience, or you need something temporary. It's what you aim for to avoid restaurant work or work outdoors. It's the base office job, not one you get because you love answering phones, putting mailing labels on packages, and making coffee for the boss (though some would disagree). If you do the job well, you can move up the office ladder to secretary or administrative assistant, and then to executive assistant. Then you can branch out, if you like, and land a paralegal or an office manager job. Or, if you're smart, you're attending school at the same time so you can get off the administrative-support track altogether.

Plaintiff here had filed claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. In reality, she was fired for being a poor receptionist, and she played the Title VII card instead of owning her own problems and admitting that she didn't like being a receptionist.

A sales manager (a person nowhere in her chain of supervisors) sent her e-mail asking her out to lunch, and she got offended. That's not lawsuit-worthy. That's worth only a "no, thanks" reply with copies saved to a folder and a mental note to watch for further e-mail, in case the situation does indeed rise to the level of sexual harassment. As it stands, there is no reason to assume that the sales manager meant anything more than a friendly lunch. But even if he did intend the e-mail as asking her out for a date, it's still not sexual harassment. It was a single piece of e-mail.

Plaintiff also complained that she went to her boss's office for a meeting, and, when she got there, the sales manager and her boss were whispering and laughing, and they wouldn't tell her what they were talking about. How this incident is lawsuit-worthy is beyond my comprehension (but then, I'm a mere law student). She came upon a private conversation between two people, and they wouldn't share it with her. This was not sexual harassment. This was none of her business.

Plaintiff here wasn't being sexually harassed or discriminated against, and her firing wasn't retaliation. She just wasn't a good fit for the job. She thinks that a receptionist shouldn't have to bring coffee to the boss. She's perfectly within her rights to think so. Likewise, her boss was perfectly within his rights to think that a receptionist should have to bring coffee to the boss. She's a bad fit for the receptionist job at this workplace, and that's her problem.

An example in a different context: Say I'm a tour guide at a historical site where the guides switch posts throughout the day in 1-hour intervals. One of the posts, in particular, receives almost no visitors to guide, so I like to take a newspaper or novel with me when I'm posted there. My boss tells me that it's a sackable offense to read at any of the posts. I think this rule is unreasonable, especially on days when the site gets no visitors at all. The boss thinks it's a perfectly reasonable rule. We're both within our rights to think the way we do. But this disconnect makes me a bad fit for the tour guide job at that historical site, and that's my problem.

In short, when it comes to deciding what tasks are required for a job, especially a job that's so low on a scale of 9 to 5, it's not the employee who does the deciding.

It's not feminist to cry sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation when you lose your job. What's feminist is to do your job well and move up the ladder to the boss's job. Being an incompetent receptionist -- a job that basically requires only opposable thumbs and a pleasant demeanor for office guests -- and then suing your ex-boss for firing you, when you deserved it, makes all feminists look bad.

In a Legal Intelligencer article you can't see unless you have a password, plaintiff's attorneys say they "intend to appeal." I, for one, am not saying, "Thanks, guys."