In Hall v. Gus Const. Co., Inc., the plaintiff suffered from continuous verbal abuse, requests for sex, unwanted touching at work, and urinating in the plaintiff’s water bottles and gas tank. This pattern of continuous harassment constitutes unlawful hostile work environment sexual harassment.
CASE IN POINT: Threatening Stares
Filed Under Main Content | Leave a Comment
In Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., the court found that where a coworker repeatedly stared at the plaintiff, after the plaintiff had already complained to management about the coworker’s explicit acts of sexual harassment, such facts could constitute an unlawful hostile work environment, and so reversed the summary judgment that had been granted by the lower court.
In Lispett v. University of Puerto Rico, sexual harassment was found where the plaintiff and other female residents were given sex-based nicknames, Playboy centerfolds were displayed where residents ate their meals and conducted meetings, and misogynistic verbal attacks were repeatedly made.
CASE IN POINT: Pornographic Pictures
Filed Under Main Content | Leave a Comment
In Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, the defendant used derogatory and insulting terms relating to women and posted pornographic pictures in common areas at the place of employment. The Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeal found: “pervasive use of derogatory and insulting terms relating to women generally and addressed to female employees personally may serve as evidence of a hostile work environment.”
In Steiner v. Showboat Operating Company, the Ninth Circuit found conduct sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment where the defendant had used the terms “dumb f-ing broad” and “f-ing c—-.” Even though the supervisor in that case was shown to be abusive to men, his abuse of women was different in that he relied on “sexual epithets, offensive, explicit references to women’s bodies and sexual conduct.” Similarly, in Burns v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court stated that vulgar and offensive phrases are “widely recognized as not only improper, but as intensely degrading.”
CASE IN POINT: Foul Language
Filed Under Main Content | Leave a Comment
In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Nulton, there was a hostile work environment where, among other things, a male employee’s repeated use of foul sex-based terms, such as “f-ing b—–” and others was severe within the meaning of FEHA “given these sex-based terms’ inherently degrading and demeaning nature.”
-
The Broderick Law Firm for Victims of Sexual Harassment and Employment Discrimination
Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, verbal conduct, or physical conduct which affect or interfere with an individual’s work performance or create an offensive work environment for that individual.
Sexual discrimination can include failure to hire or adverse employment action due to gender or sexual orientation. The Broderick Law Firm believes strongly in the fair treatment of all individuals regardless of sex and is committed to representing individuals who have been victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Mr. Broderick has the experience and knowledge necessary to help you recover the damages you are due. He will vigorously pursue your claim of sexual harassment or sexual discrimination to get you a positive result.
“Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment
“Quid Pro Quo” sexual harassment is when a supervisor makes sexual conduct of an employee a condition for employment benefits or advancement or a condition for avoiding adverse employment action or for advancement.
Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment
Hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when an employee is subject to unwelcome sexual advances or offensive gender-related language or behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive from the perspective of a reasonable person with the same fundamental characteristics as the offended employee.
This type of harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the offended employee’s employment and create an abusive environment. A single instance of sexual harassment in the “hostile work environment” context may be sufficient, but repeated instances increase the severity of the events, so that a reasonable person would be more likely to find the conduct sexually harassing due to its repetition.
In regard to unwanted sexual advances, a complaining employee must generally show that he or she gave notice that the advances are unwelcome.
Although favoritism by a supervisor towards an employee with whom the supervisor is having a consensual sexual affair does not ordinarily constitute harassment of other employees, a pattern of sexual favoritism may constitute a hostile work environment in the event that the message by management is that sexual affairs are a way to get ahead in the workplace.
Retaliation
It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against a sexual harassment or discrimination victim for making a claim of sexual harassment, for participating in a sexual harassment investigation, or for opposing discriminatory practices.