Tag Archives: harassment

Discrimination for being “unmanly”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) ruled that an iron worker who was subjected to gay slurs and simulated sex because he failed to conform to the employer’s male stereotypes was discriminated against under Title VII.

In EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., No. 11-30770 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013), the  court reviewed the jury’s findings and awarded damages.  The Fifth Circuit found that taking the case as a whole, a jury could have found that the employee was harassed because he did not fall under the “manly-man stereotype.”

This case arose when a worker, Kerry Woods, was subjected to sex harassment.  Woods was often sexual derogatory terms regarding Woods’ sexuality.  In addition, the superintendent also exposed himself when Woods was going to the bathroom, and made sexual innuendo comments to Woods.  When these actions were brought to the employer, the superintendent told the general superintendent that he didn’t care for Woods because he was “different” and “didn’t fit in.”

After trial the jury found that this verbal and physical harassment occurred daily.  The jury awarded Woods $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

via Harassed for being unmanly? En banc court sees Title VII violation; dissent sees clean-talk enforcer.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, civil rights, discrimination, District Court, employment, federal, legal decision

EEOC wins over $1.5 million in sexual harassment case

The EEOC has issued a press release announcing a big victory for sexual harassment cases.  These cases are often dismissed.  For instance, according to EEOC 2011 statistics, the EEOC received 11,364 sexual harassment complaints.  Of these, 53% were found to have no reasonable cause.  This is an increase from 2010, where the percentage was of 50.1%.  Since 1997, the percentage of cases dismissed has been in an upwards trend.

In the EEOC case against New Breed Logistics (Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02696-STA-tmp), the jury awarded $177,094 in back pay, $486,000 in compensatory damages, and $850,000 in punitive damages.

Following the 7-day trial, the jury found that the warehouse supervisor subjected 3 temporary workers to unwelcome sexual touching and lewd, obscene and vulgar  sexual remarks at the company’s Avaya Memphis area warehouse facility.  Further, the jury found that a supervisor fired the three temp workers because they complained about the harassment.

 

via Jury Awards More Than $1.5 Million in EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit against New Breed Logistics | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – JDSupra.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, courts, District Court, employment, legal decision, wage

Who is a “supervisor” in a sexual harassment case? Supreme Court will decide

On November 26th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case Vance v. Ball State University (11-556) coming from the 7th Circuit.  The issue in this case centers around the word “supervisor.”

In Faragher/Ellerth, as decided by the Supreme Court, the Court stated there is vicarious liability when the sexual harasser is the victim’s supervisor.  In other words, if the harasser is the supervisor, the employer is immediately liable unless two exceptions (described in Faragher/Ellerth) are met.

The issued posited to the Supreme Court is whether the supervisor liability rule is limited to those who have the authority to direct and oversee the victim’s daily work, or limited to those who have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline.

What’s so interesting about this case, you may ask?  The fact that courts all throughout the US are split on this definition.  Will this definition be broadly construed, narrowly construed?  If so, what would the consequences be of this decision.  Will sexual harassment claims be significantly reduced?  Will attorneys think of these claims as incredibly risky, and be less likely to pursue these claims?

As it is, civil rights have traditionally been limited.  The purpose of Title VII is to be broadly construed in order to provide civil rights protection.  The purpose of Title VII appears to be eaten away slowly.  It really does remind me of ADA before Congress enacted the ADAA.

In the ADA situation, Courts continuously narrowed the definitions and limited the extent to which a disability was covered by the Act.  Under the ADA, a disability was not covered if medical treatment reduced its impairment whereby the impairment was no longer significant.  When the ADAA was passed, Congress sternly pointed out to the extent the Courts had gone out of their way to prevent coverage under the Act for disabilities. In the ADAA, Congress specifically pointed to Supreme Court cases narrowing coverage under the Act.

Is it time for Congress to act once again?

via Vance v. Ball State University : SCOTUSblog.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, employment, legal decision, Supreme Court