Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Sex Discrimination Cases: 32
An employee brought a Title VII action against her employer for what she claimed was a hostile work environment. The employee sat near a group of coworkers in her office who regularly used vulgar language, often times regarding women. The lower court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that this behavior did not single out the employee for being a woman. However, the Court reversed summary judgment on appeal. It held that the use of language specifically about women was sufficient to show that she suffered hostility that men in the office did not.
Read More
Plaintiff, a white heterosexual male alleged that his supervisor and several co-workers repeatedly made jokes, statements and comments suggesting that he was homosexual. After filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Plaintiff brought suit against his employer alleging sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII as well as the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). Plaintiff also alleged retaliation stating that he was forced to complete more difficult work following his complaints to HR regarding his supervisor
Read More
Plaintiff, a female applicant, appealed a decision of the district court which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, a county commission and its decision maker, in the applicant
Read More
In Underwood, the plaintiff sued the county and its supervisor alleging sexual discrimination in hiring for a trucker's position. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that when she asked Paige, who was the supervisor if they hired female, he stated they did if they were qualified. In November of 2000, the plaintiff began to get the requisite training. She completed it and got her Class A driver's license in February 2001. Underwood at 4-5.
She again spoke with Paige about open positions for the county and he said there might be some requiring Class A and Class B. Paige stated he was going to hire Dallas for the class A, but the plaintiff even agreed that he was more qualified. She also applied for the class B positions in January 2001, March 2001, and May 2001. Underwood at 5-6.
On her May 2001 application, she did not specify Class A or B status
Read More
This appeal arose from a Title VII claim for sexual discrimination in regards to pay. The jury returned a verdict for the appellee on the transfer claims and for the appellant on her Title VII claims. The Eleventh Circuit relied on Morgan in holding that the district court improperly denied the appellee
Read More
Plaintiff, Lee, brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed that the defendant, Miami Dade Police Department refused to promote her because of her gender. Lee also claimed that the County retaliated against her after she complained about the alleged discrimination. The County moved for summary judgment and it was granted.
Lee began her employment as a Fingerprint Technician I in 1990. Prior to that, Lee worked for Miami Dade Corrections as a Fingerprint Technician I from 1989 to 1990, and prior to that she worked as a Fingerprint Examiner for the FBI. Lee also had the requisite knowledge of courtroom procedures and rules of evidence regarding fingerprints. After high school, Lee completed six certificates in fingerprint identification.
In Lee
Read More
Plaintiff contended she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause because defendants failed to consider, interview, or hire her as a truck driver for Perry County. The district court concluded that plaintiff
Read More
Where an employee has maintained a long tenure at a certain position, qualification for position can be inferred by virtue of employee
Read More
Where an employee has maintained a long tenure at a certain position, qualification for position can be inferred by virtue of employee
Read More
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Defendant removed the case to federal court citing a Florida appellate decision that pregnancy discrimination is preempted by Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act. In O
Read More
The appellant alleged harassment by her immediate supervisor which she reported to a female supervisor, but not to the harasser
Read More
The petitioner filed a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment; negligent retention for the continued employment of the alleged harasser; retaliatory discharge for filing harassment and aworkers comp claims, and loss of consortium in which the jury found for the petitioner. The trial court granted the appellee JNOV or in the alternative a new trial if the JNOV was overturned, and this appeal followed. The Third DCA concluded that the JNOV for the sexual harassment claim was improper because the trial court wrongly divided the instances into sexual and non-sexual conduct when determining if there was a hostile work environment. The court stated,
Read More
Cuddeback appeals lower court
Read More
The Court determined the damages that should be awarded to Richardson as a result of a sexual harassment and wrongful termination claim. The Court held that back pay is used to make the claimant whole, but in order to receive back pay, the claimant must make an effort, both reasonable and in good faith, to mitigate damages by seeking substantially equivalent employment. Richardson was able to obtain substantially similar, higher paying jobs shortly after her termination. Richardson was fired from both of these jobs due to personal problems caused by Richardson. This evidence shows that Richardson partially failed to mitigate her damages. Thus, the Court held that Richardson is entitled to back pay from the date of termination from Tricom until her termination from her first job at WLRN. Richardson is also entitled to back pay earned during her second job. The only time period that Richardson is not entitled to back pay is the time between her first and second job because Richardson caused the termination and thereby did not act with requisite diligence in mitigating damages.
The Court determined that prejudgment interest on the back pay should be awarded to Richardson to make her whole. The Court also held that Richardson is not entitled to front pay because Richardson failed to
Read More
Turner v. Bieluch
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D903a (S.D. Fla. August 13, 2004)
2004-08-13
SEX DISCRIMINATION
The plaintiff filed a gender discrimination action under Title VII after two females with breaks in their service to the Sheriff
Read More
When counsel asked the jurors to place themselves in the plaintiff
Read More
Female employee (Wilson) discussed promotion with supervisor and was told she was the obvious person for the job and that she was qualified. The supervisor allegedly repeated this to two other employees, but subsequently hired a male who became Wilson
Read More
The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) hired plaintiff-respondent Suders to work as a police communications operator for the McConnellsburg barracks, where her male supervisors subjected her to a continuous barrage of sexual harassment. In June 1998, Suders told the PSP's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, Virginia Smith-Elliott, that she might need help, but neither woman followed up on the conversation. Two months later, Suders contacted Smith-Elliott again, this time reporting that she was being harassed and was afraid. Smith-Elliott told Suders to file a complaint, but did not tell her how to obtain the necessary form. Two days later, Suders' supervisors arrested her for theft of her own computer-skills exam papers. Suders had removed the papers after concluding that the supervisors had falsely reported that she had repeatedly failed, when in fact, the exams were never forwarded for grading. Suders then resigned from the force and sued the PSP, alleging, inter alia, that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and constructively discharged, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The District Court granted the PSP's motion for summary judgment. Although recognizing that Suders' testimony would permit a fact trier to conclude that her supervisors had created a hostile work environment, the court nevertheless held that the PSP was not vicariously liable for the supervisors' conduct. In support of its decision, the District Court referred to Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 808. In that case, and in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, decided the same day, this Court held that an employer is strictly liable for supervisor harassment that "culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment." 524 U. S., at 765. But when no such tangible action is taken, both decisions also hold, the employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability. To prevail on the basis of the defense, the employer must prove that "(a) [it] exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior," and that (b) the employee "unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise." Ibid. Suders' hostile work environment claim was untenable as a matter of law, the District Court stated, because she unreasonably failed to avail herself of the PSP's internal antiharassment procedures. The court did not address Suders' constructive discharge claim.
The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The appeals court disagreed with the District Court in two key respects: First, even if the PSP could assert the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, genuine issues of material fact existed about the effectiveness of the PSP's program to address sexual harassment claims; second, Suders had stated a claim of constructive discharge due to hostile work environment. The appeals court ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense.
The United States Supreme Court held that to establish "constructive discharge," a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may assert the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to such a claim unless the plaintiff quit in reasonable response to an adverse action officially changing her employment status or situation, e.g., a humiliating demotion, extreme cut in pay, or transfer to a position in which she would face unbearable working conditions.
Read More
Store manager made continuous sexual passes at his female employee, who was ultimately fired after refusing to have sex with the manager in return for allowing her to take her break and visit with her family. The employee filed a police report the day after she was fired and an EEOC claim several days later. Subsequently, the employee brought a claim under Title VII for sexual harassment and lost on summary judgment. The District Court did not list its reasons for granting summary judgment to the employer, but instead incorporated the briefs and oral argument of the employer and adopted them. This appeal followed. The employer argued that (1) she did not plead her tangible employment action claim as a separate count, and therefore it was not properly before the court; and (2) that the employee
Read More
CROMER V. CROWDER
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D509a (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2003)
2003-07-17
SEX DISCRIMINATION
Cromer was a fingerprint identification technician at the sheriff
Read More
Costa was a warehouse worker and heavy equipment operator for, Caesar
Read More
JOHNSON v. RICE
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D549 (M. D. Fla. September 2, 2002)
2002-09-02
SEX DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiff, a black female, was employed with the Pinellas County Sheriff
Read More
Johnson v. Rice
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D549 (M.D. Fla. September 2, 2002)
2002-09-02
SEX DISCRIMINATION
Black female plaintiff employed with the Pinellas County Sheriff
Read More
Dispute arose following the termination of Pointdirex employees as to whether there was a binding arbitration agreement between the employees and the company. Pointdirex was a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The NASD is a voluntary association and its Manual-Code requires arbitration when disputes arise from terminations between NASD members and their employees. The court points to prior Florida precedent that establishes the constitution and bylaws of a voluntary association constitute a contract between association and the members when they have been assented to. The employment contracts signed by the employees also contained personal jurisdiction and venue clauses. The employer asserted that the venue clauses constituted waiver of the arbitration requirements imposed by Pointdirex
Read More
Defendant school board filed a motion for summary judgment in action brought by plaintiff teacher, in which she alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, stemming from alleged sexual harassment by defendant supervisor. The court declined to dispose of this case upon defendant
Read More
Defendant school board filed a motion for summary judgment in action brought by plaintiff teacher, in which she alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, stemming from alleged sexual harassment by defendant supervisor.
The court declined to dispose of this case upon defendant
Read More
Female plaintiff alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. The trial court dismissed three counts of the plaintiff
Read More
Female plaintiff alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. The trial court dismissed three counts of the plaintiff
Read More
This action was brought by a former employee of Verizon Directories. Plaintiff's complaint consisted of five Counts: (1) a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA); (2) gender discrimination brought under Title VII; (3) gender discrimination brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act; (4) a retaliation claim under Title VII; and (5) a retaliation claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The employer
Read More
This action was brought by a former employee of Verizon Directories. Plaintiff's complaint consisted of five Counts: (1) a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA); (2) gender discrimination brought under Title VII; (3) gender discrimination brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act; (4) a retaliation claim under Title VII; and (5) a retaliation claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The employer
Read More
The plaintiff worked as a bookkeeper at Ferry Pass United Methodist Church. She alleged sexual harassment (quid pro quo) and hostile work environment. The trial court initially concluded that the plaintiff
Read More
The plaintiff worked as a bookkeeper at Ferry Pass United Methodist Church. She alleged sexual harassment (quid pro quo) and hostile work environment. The trial court initially concluded that the plaintiff
Read More
