Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Sexual Harassment Cases: 15
Plaintiff sued the Board of Regents of the Univ. Of Georgia, The University of Georgia, the president of the university (Adams), and the Athletic Director (Vincent Dooley) under Title IX for being raped by basketball and football players. She is claiming the rape constituted a violation of Title IX.
While she was a student, she was involved with a basketball player (Cole). While engaging in consensual sex with the Basketball player, his friend from the football team (Brandon) was hiding in the closet watching. After Cole and Williams finished, Brandon came out of the closet and raped her. While Brandon was raping her, Cole called his friends
Read More
Cotton appealed a decision of the lower court which found that Cotton
Read More
The trial court erred in denying the appellant employer
Read More
The trial court erred in denying the appellant employer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the appellee employee's sexual harassment and hostile work environment claim because the evidence is insufficient to establish that the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to affect the terms and conditions of her employment and create a hostile work environment. The appellee complained to her supervisors on several occasions about a male coworker who touched her inappropriately, grabbed her, and made numerous inappropriate comments over an eight or nine-week period. The appellate court held that the flirtatious conduct did not rise to the level of discriminatory "conditions of employment" because flirtation is not sexual harassment. Furthermore, physical threats or conduct must be extensive, longlasting, unredressed, uninhibited, and permeate the plaintiff's work environment to be actionable. The offending conduct must be subjectively perceived to be extreme and hostile enough that an objectively reasonable person would find the conduct hostile or abusive. The four facts that are analyzed in determining if the harassment objectively altered the terms and conditions of the employee's employment are: (1) frequency of conduct, (2) severity of conduct, (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance, and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance. While no minimum number of incidents establishes that an employee is in a hostile work environment, the conduct directed at the appellee was not sufficiently severe to be discriminatory and does not create a hostile work environment.
Read More
The plaintiff filed claims for hostile work environment, quid pro quo discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, alleging that her supervisor made passes at her, subjected her to humiliating and demeaning acts of sexual harassment and, after rejecting his advancements and complaining to HR, she was terminated. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but the trial court entered Judgment as a Matter of Law because the general verdict was irreconcilable with the jury
Read More
Walton sued Ortho under Title VII claiming the company was responsible for sexual harassment committed by her supervisor. The company's investigation found that the affair between Walton and her supervisor was consensual or that, at the very least, it could not rule out such a possibility. Walton began collecting short-term benefits. When she was placed on long-term disability status, her active employment had to be terminated. This suit followed. The district court held that, although there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was actionable harassment, the employer was entitled to summary judgment on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ortho acted reasonably to prevent and then promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior. On appeal, the court considered Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) to determine whether Ortho was vicariously liable for the actions of Watson's supervisor. Those cases held that this type of harassment should be separated into two groups: (1) harassment which culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion or undesirable reassignment, and (2) harassment in which no adverse tangible employment action is taken but which is sufficient to constructively alter an employee's working conditions. Under the first category, the employer is held directly liable for the harassment. In the second category, the employer can avoid vicarious liability for the supervisor's conduct by raising and proving the affirmative defense that employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and that employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
Walton claimed the discharge itself amounted to a tangible employment action; she claimed that, because the disability was the product of her supervisor's harassment, any discharge resulting from that disability must be charged against the company. The court disagreed. Even though a discharge is a tangible employment decision, Walton was not discharged because of her sex, but because she failed to return to work.
The affirmative defense for employer liability has two elements: (1) the employer must have exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexual behavior, and (2) the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Watson claimed Ortho failed to check her supervisor's references, failed to provide adequate work space and had a defective complaint procedure. The court disagreed. Ortho adequately researched the supervisor's background and provided adequate public accommodations in which employees could meet. Ortho also had a anti-discrimination policy that was distributed to Watson and the company effectively handled her complaint. Thus, there was no genuine issue as to the first element. As for the second element, the court held that Watson did not reasonably avail herself of the protections afforded by Ortho's anti-discrimination policies because of her delay in reporting the incidents and the fact that she continued to return to her supervisor's apartment for private meetings. Thus, the district court was correct in holding that Ortho was entitled to the affirmative defense as a matter of law.
Read More
Plaintiffs were security officers employed at a community college who alleged they were victims of same-sex sexual harassment committed by their supervisor, who was chief of security at the college, and brought claims under 42 USC
Read More
Plaintiff was a female truck driver formerly employed by defendant Blue Circle, a concrete company. The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment. Plaintiff brought a Title VII claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment. Summary judgment for the employer was reversed where there were material issues of fact as to whether the employer had actual or constructive notice of alleged harassment, and as to whether the employer took corrective action. The appellate court also found that genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude a finding that Blue Circle had an effective sexual harassment policy. Thus, the district court erred in holding that Blue Circle
Read More
An issue arose as to whether documents concerning complaints of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior by a judge were public record. The Florida Supreme Court found that, when such complaints are filed with the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the complaints and records are confidential until such time as probable cause is found. Once probable cause has been found, documents in possession of the chief judge become public record.
Read More
Plaintiff was employed as an Administrative Assistant for DOT. While in that position, Plaintiff alleged she was sexually harassed by a coworker. Plaintiff lodged a complaint but the employer determined there was insufficient evidence to find
Read More
WILLIAMS v. MORTOROLA
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C953 (11th Cir. August 29, 2002)
2002-08-29
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Plaintiff worked for Motorola for approximately four years. She was terminated and subsequently filed suit alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA. The trial court disposed of the majority of claims on motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court found that the trial court had erred in not granting summary judgment with respect to the claims of sexual harassment and discrimination stemming from alleged treatment she had received while employed by Motorola (i.e, job assignments, performance appraisals, and pay). Motorola argued that the plaintiff had been terminated because she was insubordinate, was unable to
Read More
Williams v. Motorola
15 Fla. L. Fed. Weekly C953 (11th Cir. August 29, 2002)
2002-08-29
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Plaintiff was employed by Motorola for approximately four years. She was terminated and subsequently filed suit alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA. The District Court disposed of the majority of claims on motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court found that the District Court had erred in not granting summary judgment with respect to the claims of sexual harassment and discrimination stemming from alleged treatment she had received while employed by Motorola (i.e, job assignments, performance appraisals, and pay. Motorola argued that the plaintiff had been terminated because she was insubordinate, was unable to
Read More
A thirty-six year old female plaintiff employed as a server at the Bankers Club in February of 2000, brought sexual harassment claims under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Shortly after she began her employment, plaintiff was transferred to work in the accounting department with a sixty-seven year old Club Accountant, Michael Alvarez. The plaintiff and Alvarez formed a private "small business" relationship and personal relationship outside of their employment with the Bankers Club. They frequently met for dinner and drinks. On at least one occasion the plaintiff allowed Alvarez to touch her in a sexual manner. Although she indicated that she primarily allowed this touching to please Alvarez, she had enjoyed it "a little." The plaintiff also allowed Alvarez to photograph her in provocative poses and invited him to her home to meet her children when her husband was away. At one point, Alvarez masturbated in front of the plaintiff in his office. In early August of 2000, plaintiff spoke to a co-worker about her desire for Alvarez
Read More
Thirty-six year old female plaintiff employed as a server at the Bankers Club in February of 2000, brought sexual harassment claims under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Shortly after she began her employment, plaintiff was transferred to work in the accounting department with sixty-seven year old Club Accountant, Michael Alvarez. The plaintiff and Alvarez formed a private "small business" relationship and personal relationship outside of their employment with the Bankers Club. They frequently met for dinner and drinks. On at least one occasion the plaintiff allowed Alvarez to touch her in a sexual manner. Although she indicated that she primarily allowed this touching to please Alvarez, she had enjoyed it "a little." The plaintiff also allowed Alvarez to photograph her in provocative poses and invited him to her home to meet her children when her husband was away. At one point, Alvarez masturbated in front of the plaintiff in his office. In early August of 2000, plaintiff spoke to a co-worker about her desire for Alvarez
Read More
This was an action against an employer where the plaintiff alleged racial and religious discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. Nicolette Bernstein, a female plaintiff of Jewish ethenticy, was denied a promotion by her employer, SEPHORA, the owner of a chain of beauty product stores. The evidence concerning the manager
Read More
