New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The New York Post is reporting that a former waitress at a New York area gentleman’s club filed a lawsuit claiming she was fired because she complained about sexual harassment by both male and female supervisors.

The former Penthouse Executive Club cocktail waitress alleges that a female general manager touched her on her legs and thighs in a sexual manner. The plaintiff also alleges that the manager offered to engage in sexual relations with her in front of customers for a fee.

The EEOC has filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against an upscale steakhouse in New York City. It is alleged that male management groped and made sexual comments to other male employees. After the victims of the harassment complained about the unwelcome sexual behavior, management retaliated by assigning the complainants “less desirable” work. Subsequently, the victims were terminated.

In commenting on the case, EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. stated, “EEOC is determined to stop sexual harassment whether faced by men or women.” The case has been filed in the U.S. District in the Southern District of New York. The EEOC's press release can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09.cfm.

A former hotel clerk who claims she was fired because she was not pretty enough is bring suit against a major hotel chain. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing the woman to sue Heartland Inns of America, who she claims fired her due to her “tomboy” appearance.

The former employee received positive reviews and two raises while employed by the hotel, but was criticized for wearing loose fitting clothes and not wearing make up. After she was fired, the hotel began videotaping potential front desk employees so officials could see how they looked before hiring them. The court stated that companies cannot make employment decisions based on sex stereotypes, and that to fire an employee for failing to wear makeup and dresses would be sexual discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and race discrimination against a family-run fish supplier in Brooklyn Federal Court. The suit alleges that African-American employees were subjected to racial slurs and jokes, including the n-word. The complaint alleges that the owner of the company ordered an employee to "go get it, ------. Other allegations involve sexual harassment. Two company officials are accused of "regularly grabbing or pinching male employees' buttocks and pushing their penises against employees' buttocks." The EEOC attorney handling the suit, Sanu Chandry was quoted as saying, "the stunning facts of this case remind of us of an ugly time in our nation's history."

In Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, a 30 year old female plaintiff brought a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claiming that her termination was in retaliation for reporting, in the employer’s internal investigation, that the Employee Relations Director had sexually harassed her. The employer’s proffered legitimate non discriminatory reason for Crawford’s termination was that she embezzled funds.

Title VII’s opposition clause makes it unlawful "for an employer to discriminate against any ... employe[e]" who (1) "has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter." However, Title VII does not define the term “oppose.” The Supreme Court, utilizing the plain meaning of “oppose”, held that the statute’s opposition clause also extends protection to an employee that speaks out about discrimination not on their own accord but at the behest of their employer during the course of an internal investigation.

The Court reasoned that the meaning of the term "oppose" goes beyond "active, consistent" behavior in ordinary discourse, to include a person that has taken no action except for the act of disclosing the discrimination. Thus, a person can "oppose" discrimination merely by responding to someone else's questions just as surely as actively complaining of discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit in the southern District of Ohio against New York based JP-Morgan Chase Bank alleging the bank sexually discriminated against women and fired one after she complained about their practices at an office in Colombus, Ohio.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Aimee Doneyhue was terminated from her job in 2007 in retaliation for complaining about sexually discriminatory practices to management because of the “sexually hostile work environment which was created, fostered, and maintained by male supervisors.” The complaint also alleges that JP-Morgan did not take proper action to correct the harassment and made it much more difficult for women to earn commission and bonuses.

The complaint seeks back pay, punitive damages, and an end to all discriminatory practices on the basis of gender. JP-Morgan spokesperson declined to comment.

A former employee at the Verizon facility in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania alleged that her employment was terminated after she complained of discrimination. The former employee complained about sexually offensive graffiti and materials in Verizon work areas and trucks. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that after complaining to management, the employee was subjected to retaliatory harassment, including the hanging of a plastic rat from the ceiling. The EEOC went on to charge that Verizon management knew of the harassment and did nothing to stop it. Instead, the employee was fired for her complaints.

Verizon maintains that an investigation took place but nothing was discovered to substantiate the allegations. Verizon further contended that the company acted appropriately and the size of the settlement recognized that the company did nothing wrong. Verizon has agreed to provide training to its employees at the Bryn Mawr facility on TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal to retaliate against someone who complains about employment discrimination.

Forbes Magazine’s recent piece, “The ‘new’ sexual harassment is more subtle,” highlights the transformation in workplace relationships has occurred between co-workers over the last couple of years.

It is now uncommon for an employee’s supervisor to be so blatant in their sexual advances. No longer are bosses threatening to fire a subordinate for not agreeing to sleep with them. No longer do the situations play out as they did in the past: ‘Sleep with me if you want the promotion.’

On the contrary, today’s version of sexual harassment can be much more discreet and less obvious. Much of the problems have been traced to new technology, such as text messages, social-networking sites, and email. David Bowman, an employment lawyer at the Philadelphia office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockus, attributes the surge in - at the workplace to the difference in nature between personal interactions. “When you talk in person, 80 percent of what you say is in your tone and body language. With technology, all of that is gone,” says Bowman.

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of Appeals to answer the following question: Does the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code?

Under Faragher/Ellerth, employers are afforded an affirmative defense under federal law to vicarious liability for discriminatory harassment by a supervisor that does not result in a tangible employment action if the employer can show it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct alleged discriminatory conduct and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the protective measures afforded by the employer.

The language of the New York Human Rights Laws is in direct conflict with the federal Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. The Second Circuit correctly called on New York’s highest court to resolve this issue because of “the absence of authoritative state court decisions, the importance of the issue to the state, and the capacity of certification to resolve this litigation.”

On June 11, 2009 The EEOC (U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission) entered into an agreement with prominent national retailer Dillard’s Inc., in settlement of a lawsuit regarding incidents of sexual harassment in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. As part of the agreement, Dillards is to pay $11,000 in damages to the victims of sexual harassment as well as reform their workplace policies to comply with Title IV.

While the media typically depicts sexual harassment victims as females, males also fall victim to sexual harassment in the workplace. The Dillard’s case involved male on male sexual harassment at a Dillard’s in Florida. According to the EEOC, the Dillard’s store at the Fashion Square Mall in Orlando permitted a sexually hostile work environment for its employees. The specific incident involved a male supervisor that engaged in verbal as well as physical sexual harassment of two Dillard’s employees, a male sales associate and a male dockworker. The supervisor exposed himself to the employees, sexually propositioned them, and made explicit sexual and derogatory comments to them. While both men complained about the foregoing conduct, Dillard’s took no steps to resolve it.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-1496-PCF-KRS) in September 2007. The terms of the settlement provide that in addition to paying the victims $110,000, the Dillard’s store will provide its staff with booklets describing its anti sexual harassment and retaliation policies, conduct training for all employees on the matter, and train employees that will specifically be responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints. Furthermore, Dillard’s will submit to monitoring by the EEOC for the next three years, and will post a notice about the resolution of this case.

The EEOC recently stated that employers ought to be more vigilant in ensuring that male employees are not being subjected to working in sexually hostile environments since sexual harassment cases involving male victims have increased sharply over the past decade.

Jane Collins, an employee of the luxury teddy bear company Steiff, has made allegations against Martin Frechen, the company’s CEO, claiming that he sexually harassed her for years, and raped her. Collins alleges that the sexual harassment began in September 2004. Frechen’s conduct included trying to get her to perform sexual acts, rearranging her schedule so that she was forced to work with him, repeatedly grabbing her and trying to force himself upon her and trapping her in a car and raping her. Collins says she didn’t report the rape because she is a single mother and was “terrified” of losing her job.

Collins is also bringing charges against Steiff’s North American CEO James Pitoco, claiming he ignored her complaints about Frechen. Chief Financial Officer Deiter Statzinger says the company “resolutely den[ies] the allegations in the complaint and will vigorously defend the claims in court.” Collins is bringing charges for $80 million in damages.

Duane Reade Inc., the well-known drug store chain that operates over 200 stores in the New York area, will pay $240,000 and furnish other substantial relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According the lawsuit, Duane Reade unlawfully created, maintained and failed to remedy a hostile work environment at one of its Bronx Stores by subjecting several female employees to sexual and pregnancy harassment. The lawsuit claimed that the store manager, Madiaw Diaw, frequently made vulgar remarks about women’s private parts, sexually propositioned female employees, made lewd comments about their pregnancies and bodies, assigned unfavorable job duties to pregnant employees, and repeatedly grabbed female employees, including grabbing their buttocks. Moreover, employees who complained and filed discrimination charges with the EEOC were retaliated against by being subjected to further harassment by their supervisors.

“This settlement achieves the EEOC’s objectives by providing appropriate relief to the victims of sexual harassment while implementing appropriate measures to prevent this kind of violation in the future,” said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC’s New York district office. The EEOC sought both money damages as well as improvements in training and other policies.

The second sexual harassment suit against Southern Hospitality, Justin Timberlake’s Upper East Side restaurant was recently filed in the New York State Supreme Court. The complaint alleges that Timberlake’s business partners, are guilty of “vile and discriminatory conduct” including, specifically, that Timberlake’s partners viewed pornography while locked in a room with the plaintiff and laughed at her when she began to cry.

The complaint also alleges race discrimination in that a hostess who was given the nickname, “that ghetto girl at the door” was terminated by the company.

There has been no comment on this issue by Southern Hospitality or their publicist.

Duane Reade, Inc. must pay $240,000 to female employees who suffered sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination while working at the pharmacy.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed suit against the popular New York City pharmacy on behalf of female employees for creating a hostile and threatening environment. A Duane Reade manager in a Bronx location sexually harassed the women by making inappropriate comments about womens’ private parts, sexually propositioning female employees, making explicit remarks about their pregnancies and bodies, repeatedly touching the female employees and grabbing their buttocks and assigning unfavorable duties to the pregnant employees.

A retaliation claim was also brought by the EEOC on behalf of the female employees because, after they complained about their supervisors’ unlawful behavior, Duane Reade allowed the discrimination to continue instead of remedying the hostile work environment.

A social work supervisor who was terminated in February of 2005, as a result of nine allegations of sexual harassment being filed against him, ultimately prevailed in a settlement that will allow him to truthfully say on future job applications that he quit and was not fired.

The supervisor, Cesar Bedroni, had worked in San Luis Obispo County, California and was terminated by the county to emphasize that sexual harassment would not be tolerated from county employees. Bedroni appealed his firing and, after hearing testimony from those involved, the Civil Service Commission ultimately suspended him for three months without pay and gave him his job back. This decision pitted the Board of Supervisors against the Civil Service Commission which meant that the county was suing itself. Despite that a Superior Court judge then ruled that the Civil Service Commission had not acted unreasonably in restoring Bedroni’s position, the County again fired Bedroni when he returned to his job.

Bedroni then filed the instant lawsuit alleging that he was retaliated against by the county for successfully challenging his first dismissal.

A former Bay Minnete, Alabama employee, Deanna M. Rider, has brought a sexual harassment and workplace retaliation suit under Title VII of the Equal Pay Act, alleging that Public Works Director Lamar Hadley propositioned her for sex, slapped her on the rear and tried to feel her breasts. The suit also alleges that upon receiving her complaint of the alleged sexually harassing acts, the city fired her from her position.

Among the allegations contained in the complaint were that Hadley called Rider at home, made numerous advances toward her and, on one occasion, asked Rider to take off her panties and show Hadley her private area.

A woman has sued ABC and ‘Lost’ actor Henry Ian Cusick claiming that the actor sexually harassed her, and that ABC fired her in retaliation after she complained. The lawsuit claims that Cusick, who stars as Desmond Hume on ‘Lost,’ fondled the woman’s buttocks and breasts, and kissed her on the lips in October 2007. The woman alleges that when she reported the incident to her supervisor, she was told to avoid Cusick, and then was fired 12 days later. She had worked for ABC since 1997. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages the woman is seeking.

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office is liable for damages and legal costs in a sexual harassment case brought by a records clerk. The clerk, Donna Feleccia Scroggin, alleged that she was sexually harassed by sheriff’s Sergeant, Ron Yanor. Scroggin claimed that Yanor had invited her to come to a bar, showed up at her house uninvited, tried to kiss her and sent her a letter written on Illinois Department of Public Health stationary that falsely indicated that she had been exposed to a sexually transmitted disease. The Illinois Human Rights Commission awarded Scroggin $10,000 in damages and $13,400 to cover her legal fees. The Commission held that the sheriff’s office response to Scroggin’s claims were reprehensible, as they only suspended Yanor for four days and told Scroginn not to go public with her charges. The appellate court had reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the sheriff’s office was not responsible for Yanor’s actions because Scroggin was not under their direct supervision. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Commission’s ruling, finding that the evidence of the forged letter, together with the other conduct that was proved by Scroggin, was sufficient to establish a hostile working environment and sexual harassment claim.

Executive Officer Leanne Siri, the highest ranked civilian woman at Dallas Fire-Rescue, filed a Federal complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Texas Workforce Commission on Friday, April 24, 2009. Siri, alleged that she was demoted, losing 30% of her current pay, after complaining of “lewd emails and sexual harassment form higher-ups.”

Dallas City Attorney Thomas Perkins, speaking on behalf of the city and the department, refused to address Siri’s allegations, but did state that the fire department chief, Eddie Burns, has expanded opportunities for women within the fire department, and made it easier to file employment discrimination complaints.

In addition to Siri’s complaint, the fire department also faces two other gender discrimination complaints and a lawsuit.

The Waterford Township of Michigan has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former Waterford Police Department clerk against the township and its police department. Penny Jo Dye alleged that she was subject to degrading and inflamed comments made about her breasts and tight pants after she gave statements backing a sexual harassment claim brought by a co-worker against the police department. After Dye filed a complaint with the township’s Fiscal and Human Resources Department about sexual harassment, she alleged that the township refused to interfere and instead, retaliated against her. The retaliatory conduct included isolating Dye by taking her job responsibilities away from her, withholding training and commencing unwarranted internal investigations to discipline her. Dye was ultimately terminated from her position.

The Township agreed to settle her case for $325,000 in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit. Under the settlement agreement, Dye is prohibited from applying to future employment opportunities with the Waterford Township.

According to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a male registered nurse, Roy E. Dreshman, Jr., has filed a claim against his former employer, Henry Clay Villa, in the United States District Court in Pittsburgh for sexual harassment, gender discrimination and age discrimination. In the complaint, Dreshman alleges that soon after two of his co-workers recognized him to be a former stripper, some employees began to pass around photographs of him as a dancer, solicited lap dances, asked him to perform at bachelorette parties and groped him. One employee even decorated her office with a poster of Dreshman as a male stripper. Residents of the nursing home also participated in discriminatory conduct against Dreshman by telling him, “Oh, my gosh, you are one of them go-go boys,” and calling him a “hootchie-kootchie dancer.”

Dreshman also alleges that the nursing home discriminated against him based on his gender and age by favoring female nurses for full-time positions over male nurses. Dreshman was told that he was a "pretty boy" and that "males did not ‘belong’ in the nursing field.” In the complaint, he also alleges that instead of launching an investigation after receiving his complaint, the management of the nursing home retaliated against him, leading to his ultimate termination.

In a complaint filed in September 2007 with the New York State Division of Human Rights, a former sheriff’s confidential executive assistant in Tompkins County claimed she was sexually harassed and subjected to gender discrimination by the Sheriff over a period of two years and then was retaliated against after complaining about the alleged behavior. Robin Korherr claims the sexual harassment began in 2005 while she was going through a divorce. Tompkins County Sheriff Peter Meskill allegedly tried to grope and kiss Korherr on several occasions. Korherr also alleges that Meskill often called her after he had been drinking to tell her how beautiful she was.

Korherr says she asked her boss several times to rectify the situation and that Meskill would initially apologize, but then become aggressive in his harassment again. In early 2007, Meskill took away her privileges and enforced new rules which made it impossible for Korherr to work. Korherr believes that these actions were retaliation against her for refusing to sleep with Meskill. In late 2007, Korherr left the job to work for the New York State Office of Homeland Security.

On March 26, 2009, the New York State Division of Human Rights found probable cause to hear Korherr’s case. Korherr provided testimony for her case during a hearing on April 23, 2009 after two hours of private negotiations in an attempt to reach a settlement. Meskill is expected to testify at a later date.

On April 13, 2009, Federal District Court Judge, Lawrence O. Anderson, entered a judgement of over $267,000 as well as significant injunctive relief in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an employment discrimination lawsuit against Sunfire Glass Inc. The lawsuit charged that Sunfire’s owner, Paul McBride, subjected a class of female employees to severe physical and verbal sexual harassment in violation of Federal law.

Judge Anderson found that McBride sexually harassed two female glassblowers by touching the women on their breasts and between their legs, hitting the women on the buttocks, making obscene gestures and verbally harassing the women by talking about their bodies and using vulgar language. The two women, Tineke Meyer and Karina Mercado, complained repeatedly to management, but no action was taken to stop the sexual harassment. As a result of the severe abuse, the women were left no choice but to resign.

In addition to the monetary damages awarded, Judge Anderson also ordered Sunfire enjoined from engaging in sex discrimination and ordered the company to train employees on employment discrimination and sexual harassment, to post notices about sex discrimination and to create anti-discrimination policies and procedures.

Without the courage of these two women to stand up for themselves, the heinous conduct at Sunfire would not have been exposed. Perhaps their courage will stand as an example, and empower people to stand up for themselves, and for each other when confronted with employment discrimination or sexual harassment.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc. will pay $255,000 in order to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. As part of the settlement, it will also investigate anonymous sexual harassment claims, conduct more employee training and report instances of sexual harassment claims for three years.

Cracker Barrel was accused of allowing sexual jokes and lewd remarks to be made to seven female employees at one of its locations in Cedar Bluff, TN. The company did not take action when the women complained to managers and the Cracker Barrel complaint line. According to a recent article in The Tennessean, Cracker Barrel decided to settle the sexual harassment suit in order to maintain a good relationship with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

This is not the first time Cracker Barrel was accused of allowing workplace discrimination practices to occur at one of its locations. In 2006, Cracker Barrel paid $2 million in a consent decree to resolve a race discrimination and sexual harassment suit involving 51 employees at three Illinois restaurant locations.

Sexual harassment can include any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or verbal or physical conduct that creates an offensive or sexually charged work environment for employees of either gender.

In two recent sexual harassment cases in New York, one state and one Federal, the Courts reinforced the broadening of the protection of the New York City Human Rights Law in sexual harassment cases. In Williams v. The New York City Housing Authority, 872 NYS2d 27 (1st Dept. 2009) and Zarkzewska v. The New School, 06 Civ. 5463 (LAK), the Courts addressed The Restoration Act of 2005 amendments to the New York City Human Rights Law, which refer to the Act’s “uniquely broad and remedial purposes.”

In Williams, the Court determined that under the New York City Human Rights Law, a sexual harassment case should not be analyzed under the traditional framework set forth by the Federal courts in determining what is actionable harassment. Further, the Court noted that the classification of conduct as “severe and pervasive” does not apply to claims brought under the New York City Human Rights Law.

In Zarkzewska, the Court ruled that under the New York City Human Rights Law, defendants are not entitled to an affirmative defense that exists under the Federal law.

The decision in Williams is perhaps most significant because now, when analyzing a case of sexual harassment under the New York City Human Rights Law the question is not whether the conduct is severe and pervasive but rather “the primary issue for a trier of fact in harassment cases...is whether the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her gender.”

The New York City Council, by its enactment of the Restoration act of 2005, has once again established itself as a leader in the preservation of an individual’s human rights in the workplace. The Court’s interpretation of the Restoration Act has sent the clear message that sexual harassment in the workplace of any kind will not be tolerated.

Two New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employees recently filed a troubling sex discrimination lawsuit. According to a recent article in the New York Daily News, the two female employees, Lillian Padilla and Magda Rodriguez, claimed they are subjected to entirely different conditions than their male counterparts. The allegations state that the women are consistently given the hardest and dirtiest jobs, are victimized by a barrage of threats and insults, and are denied showers or changing rooms after spending hours working in sewage. The complaint further alleges that the women, both of whom are lesbians, are subjected to derogatory slurs attacking their sexual orientation, and have also been unwillingly exposed to pornographic materials.

According to the complaint, this is not the first instance of sex discrimination committed by the DEP. The women claim that other female employees have left the company because of similar treatment, causing a shocking disparity in the male to female ratio at the DEP, with only five female laborers out of the 426 currently employed. Furthermore, when attempting to assert their rights, the female employees were threatened by management and continued to receive harsh treatment. However, despite these acts, all Padilla and Rodriguez are seeking is the same treatment as their male co-workers. Says Rodriguez, “I just want the policies changed so that women have equal rights. I have no shower. She has no shower. We work in sewage. That’s what we do all day.” The DEP is said to be currently investigating the claim.

The Florida Department of Corrections faces a lawsuit from more than 100 female employees alleging sexual harassment from male inmates under the Civil Rights Act, which provides the right for employees to be free from sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace. According to a recent article in The Miami Herald, the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, described “conduct so hostile, notorious and commonplace that it is referred to by prison staff and inmates as ‘gunning.’”

The suit follows a recent jury award of $1.6 million for female workers who faced similar treatment by inmates. Walter McNeil, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, acknowledged that such incidents do occur in the workplace, but assured that steps were being taken to protect female employees. For example, last year, the Florida Department of Corrections changed its rules to make intentional exposure of genitals or masturbating by an inmate result in 60 days in disciplinary confinement and the loss of 90 days of gain time.

Elizabeth Williams, a Major Gifts Officer for Binghamton University athletics, filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 17, 2009. According to a recent New York Times article, the complaint alleged that there were “egregious acts of sexual misconduct” committed by Jason Siegel, the Senior Associate Athletic Director, and Chris Lewis, the Assistant Athletic Director for Development. Williams claims that Siegel had physically and verbally harassed her since she started working with the university’s athletics department on January 5, 2009.

In one incident, Williams claims that Lewis told her that she needed to entertain a donor at a Binghamton game because he liked “chesty, loudmothed women.” Williams also alleges that one night, at a dinner with major donors, Siegel and Lewis speculated on her bra size, and suggested that she strip for a donor who was going to have a bachelor party. Among other things, Williams said that Siegel had grabbed her breasts, and told her that she was “not hired to have opinions," but rather to "look good and flirt with donors." Williams said that she reported the sexual harassment to the school over a month ago, but nothing has been done, and her role has since been diminished.

Williams claims that she has been removed from her office, had the pass code to her voicemail changed and been stripped of nearly all of her responsibilities. Binghamton’s Athletic Director, Joel Thirer, said that he had “no knowledge and no comment” regarding the complaint. The EEOC has not yet reviewed the complaint.

The Society for Human Resource Management reports that 97% of U.S. companies have a written sexual harassment policy. Researchers at the University of Missouri found, however, that such policies might not be effective in preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. This is because researchers found that individuals’ perceptions of flirting and sexual harassment and their understanding of the terms are not always a “perfect match.”

According to Debbie Dougherty, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Missouri Department of Communication, the participants in the study “did not consider that their meaning would be different from others. While participants acknowledge that others may perceive behaviors differently, they seemed to assume that they all used the same definition to determine when someone had crossed the line from harmless flirting into sexual harassment."

The bottom line is that a sexual harassment policy is just not enough. Managers and human resource professionals must continue to provide training and coaching on the subject of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Vineland Board of Education approved a $125,000 out-of-court settlement to Joni Kane, the district’s public information assistance, who commenced a civil sexual harassment suit in 2006 against district spokesperson John Sbrana and the school system. Kane charged Sbrana and the school with placing her in a hostile work environment where she was sexually harassed, and denied promotions and pay increases.

The suit alleged that one month into Kane’s employment with the communications office in 1997, Kane was subject to sexual advances by Sbrana through emails. In 1998, after avoiding Sbrana’s advances, Kane was told that she would have to work weekends, holidays and evenings without overtime compensation. The suit also named the district for failing to resolve the hostile work environment and abusive work conditions. Kane’s attorney, Marc Weinberg, said the situation had caused Kane “extreme physical and psychological injuries,” warranting compensatory and punitive damages.

The Board of Education split in a 5-3 vote to authorize the payment by the district’s insurance carrier. Objections were made with respect to how the investigation was handled at the outset when allegations of sexual harassment first arose in 2006. Frank Giordano, President of the Board, said that even though there was an interest in letting the matter proceed to give each party equal access to justice, if the district lost in court and Kane was awarded more than $125,000, the remaining balance would have to be paid by taxpayers. However, Superintendent Charles Ottinger explained that the Board’s displeasure with the outcome and their legal representation was not a reflection on the merits of Kane’s case, and further reiterated that any employee who is subject to sexual harassment should bring the matter to the attention of the administration.

Brenda Keys, a former State Attorney’s office employee has been permitted, by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, to file a suit against her former employer on the grounds of workplace retaliation and hostile work environment. However, based on Keys’ allegations, the Commission disallowed the possibility of a sexual harassment suit.

The allegations involve incidents between Keys and former State Attorney Steve Meadows in which Keys alleges that she was demoted and had her bonus halved by Meadows because he learned that she was aiding some of her co-workers in the pursuit of sexual harassment complaints against Meadows. Central to the Commission’s finding was its conclusion that Meadows had no credible evidence with which to refute allegations that Meadows had sex with an employee in his private office. An additional Commission finding that gave weight to the potential hostile work environment claim was that Meadows seemed to prefer his female staff, particularly those female employees who wore revealing clothing.

Meadows unsuccessfully attempted to complain of a bias on the part of the Commission’s review, pointing to an alleged 60 claims from other female employees who contended that the work environment was “professional and positive,” which the Commission allegedly failed to recognize. His request that the review be forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in order to obtain a supposed unbiased review, was refused, according to Meadows.

Burger King Corp. settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and will pay $85,000 to a North Carolina woman who was harassed by her store manager. The EEOC stated that Kathleen Joyner was sexually harassed by her general manager from December 2007 to March 2008. Ms. Joyner was 18-years-old at the time the alleged harassment took place.

According to the complaint, Ms. Joyner had complained to her assistant managers, but they failed to take any action to resolve the issue. As part of the settlement, Burger King Corp. is required to provide anti-harassment training to all managers and shift coordinators in its Clemmons and Winston-Salem, North Carolina restaurants. Ms. Joyner’s general manager was transferred to the Winston-Salem restaurant. In addition, all Burger King Corp. restaurants are required to review the anti-sexual harassment policies with all newly hired employees.

A nurse from Flushing Hospital was awarded $15 million after a jury found that the hospital had allowed a doctor to abuse female employees for eight years according to a recent New York Daily News article. The nurse stated that “everybody knew it was an atmosphere of dirty jokes in the hallways and at the nursing station, but no one did anything about it.”

A doctor repeatedly made dirty jokes, propositioned and physically harassed female employees. Despite receiving complaints, hospital supervisors did nothing to correct the behavior. Furthermore, the doctor has a history of sexual harassment violations. In 1996, he was charged with having a two-year sexual relationship with an alcoholic patient.

Sexual harassment occurs either when one explicitly or implicitly rejects the improper sexual conduct of another and this rejection affects an individual's employment in ways such as interfering with one's work performance, or in some cases creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. It is unlawful for an employer to allow supervisors and other coworkers to create or maintain a workplace that may interfere with work because of intimidating, hostile or offensive sexual harassing conduct.

On December 3, 2008, a jury awarded Juan I. Valera $420,000 for being subjected to a hostile work environment. Valera, an employee of Costco for 20 years, is gay and is also HIV-positive. Valera’s attorney alleged that a Costco General Manager casually used the word “queer” around Valera, which caused him to take a leave of absence. To rectify the situation, Valera asked the Assistant General Manager to protect him from insensitive remarks. The following day, Valera was demoted and received a pay cut.

A report on MSNBC.com noted that, in February 2009, Valera is suing Costco again. Valera alleges in his new Los Angeles Superior Court complaint that the company’s failure to reinstate him to his old position is an act of retaliation that stems from both the previous jury award and his sexual orientation.

After a seven week trial in a sex discrimination and sexual harassment case brought by a female neurosurgeon, Dr. Sagun Tuli, against her boss, Dr. Arthur Day, the Chairman of the Neurosurgery Department, a jury awarded the Plaintiff $1.6 million in damages. According to a recent article in The Boston Globe, the jury found that Dr. Tuli was subjected to harassment, ridicule, intimidation and other abusive conduct that was motivated, in part, by her gender. An example of the discriminatory conduct was the repeated demeaning remarks made to Dr. Tuli by Dr. Day while she was operating, such as, “You are just a girl. Are you sure you can do that?” On another occasion at a hospital dinner, Dr. Tuli testified that Dr. Day asked her whether she would “get up on the table and dance for [them] to show the female residents how to behave.” The jury also awarded damages because it found that the hospital retaliated against Dr. Tuli after she complained about sex discrimination.

The New York Times published an article on February 24, 2009 regarding a Federal judge in Galveston, TX who was indicted last August on charges of sexual abuse against his case manager and secretary. The case shocked the community and led to courthouse demonstrations. On February 23, 2009 the case ended abruptly with a plea agreement.

Judge Samuel Kent retired from the bench and pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice in Federal court in Houston, averting a trial on five other counts involving sexually inappropriate behavior with employees. The obstruction of justice charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, but people who are involved in the case have said that the government is expected to seek a three year sentence.

Judge Kent’s indictment described his advances on his case manager and secretary as particularly lewd, involving groping and forcing the women’s faces into his groin area. The Judge had maintained that his advances were invited and enjoyed, but his admission that they in fact were not, was part of his plea deal. Judge Kent would have been the first district judge to be tried on Federal sexual harassment charges.

This week, the San Francisco Chronicle and Law.com reported that Maya Perez, a transgender woman, filed a sexual harassment and gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Burlington Coat Factory, claiming that while she was a sales associate in their San Francisco store, she had to endure seven years of physical and verbal abuse from her supervisors, colleagues and customers after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. Perez is one of a handful of transgender people who are litigating such employment discrimination matters.

Perez began working at the San Francisco store in 1996. Perez alleges that after she transitioned from a man to a woman in 2001, fellow co-workers and customers harassed her by pushing and groping her, showing her pornographic magazines and photographs, and calling her names such as “he-she.” The managers and security guards failed to intervene and protect her after they heard and saw the incidents either in person or on the store’s security cameras. The store also prevented her from changing her name tag from “Stevie,” her male name, to “Maya,” her current name. After legally changing her name from “Steven Perez” to “Maya Perez” in 2003, the store forced her to reapply for her position with her new name, even though she had already worked in the store for seven years.

Burlington Coat Factory’s company policy prohibits discrimination based on sex, but it does not make reference to sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes. After Perez complained to her supervisors and the regional human resource director about the harassment, neither took any steps to investigate the issue, as required by company policy. Perez is seeking punitive damages, emotional distress, back pay and a change in employment policies to ensure that managers and employees are more sensitive toward gender identity matters.

Recently, The New York Times wrote a piece detailing a somewhat predictable side effect of the current economic downturn, predictable in the sense that recessions of years past have resulted in a similar trend: men are feeling the brunt of lay-offs, creating a higher percentage of families being supported by women breadwinners. In fact, women workers are poised to comprise a majority of the American workforce for the first time in the country’s history.

However, looking beyond this fact of increased representation in the workforce, reveals the ominous reality facing families in this economic climate. While women may seem more secure in their jobs in the recession, as the vast majority of layoffs have fallen on male dominated industries such as manufacturing and construction, women tend to find it more difficult to solely support a family because, in general, women who hold full-time positions generally earn only 80 cents for each dollar that their male counterpart earns.

In the face of a deepening recession, we may see challenges to presumed gender roles if layoffs continue to disproportionately fall on men with a new female dominated labor force. It is our hope that women will soon be treated more fairly in the workplace and not be subjected to sex discrimination or sexual harassment as women gain increased representation in the workforce.

A recent article on Occupational Health & Safety Online discussed a study which found that women who have suffered from sexual harassment in the workplace have a tendency to leave the organization. Professor Eran Vigoda-Gadot and research student Chana Levi from the University of Haifa surveyed 192 women who work in the public sector in Israel. The purpose of the study was to determine how sexual harassment in the workplace may or may not change a woman’s behavior in the workplace, the likelihood of a woman to leave an organization following an instance of sexual harassment and to observe how much internal politics and an employee’s belief in her ability to change things affect the behavior of women who have been sexually harassed in the workplace.

The study revealed that women who have been sexually harassed in the workplace have a tendency to leave their jobs. This tendency is caused by several factors relating to a woman’s belief in her own power to change the status quo. Depending on the level of internal corporate politics, women tend to flee rather than put up a fight.

The researchers’ conclusions indicated that “organizations that wish to combat the phenomenon of sexual harassment ought to set clear policies that minimize uncertainty and the risks that confront a female worker who wishes to make a complain.” Women should not stand silent in the fight against sexual harassment in the workplace and should be encouraged to speak up if such an instance occurs, no matter the degree of sexual harassment.

Karin Keegan, a 37-year-old female Delta Airlines flight attendant, is suing JetBlue Airways and Delta Air Lines for sexual harassment. Ms. Keegan complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and was given the right-to-sue letters late last year. Due to an agreement, Delta flight attendants are ferried to their job assignments by JetBlue flights. Ms. Keegan claims that a male JetBlue flight attendant denied her access on the work-related flight because she was not dressed provocatively enough. The male JetBlue flight attendant wanted her to wear a lower-cut shirt and tighter pants. When Ms. Keegan changed her outfit to appease the JetBlue attendant, she was told that she was too late to board the flight. In addition, flight attendants of lower seniority were allowed to board the flight without issues with regard to their clothing.

Last week, The New York Times published an article about the United States Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., No 06-1595, to expand the protection of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Crawford was a case of workplace retaliation brought by a witness in a sexual harassment investigation who was terminated after cooperating with the investigator. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether someone who was not complaining about employment discrimination that they themselves suffered was entitled to be protected from workplace retaliation.

In Crawford, Justice Souter, writing for the majority noted that “[N]othing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative, but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.”

The Crawford decision is very significant in that it shows a shift in the interpretation of the Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation laws to mirror more closely the New York City Human Rights Law which was amended in 2005 to broaden employees’ protection from workplace retaliation.

The New York City Human Rights law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. This ban includes perceived sexual orientation as well, meaning that an employer may not discriminate against an employee that it simply senses is homosexual. Recently, the Court of Appeals in the United Kingdom found that a man forced to leave his job because of merciless taunting by his colleagues who took him to be a gay, won the right to claim compensation from his employers. In this case, a married man with children alleged that he was tormented by his coworkers because he had attended an all-boys boarding school. His coworkers knew that he was not gay, but taunted him nevertheless because of homophobia and associated stereotypes. In finding that the victim’s claims came within the United Kindom’s regulations, the Court held that the legislature in prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace could not possibly have intended that a victim be required to declare his sexual orientation in order to establish that harassment was based on sexual orientation.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on January 26, 2009, which is sure to be the subject of man future blog posts. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, the plaintiff was a former municipal employee who had been terminated. The company stated that it had fired the employee for “embezzlement.” The employee, however, believed that she was terminated because she participated in an investigation into a sexual harassment complaint asserted by a co-worker. Crawford stated that she was being punished for having confirmed that the complaining employee was actually sexually harassed.

The issue, therefore, was not whether the employee who asserts a claim was protected by workplace retaliation laws – which she would be – but whether an employee who does not herself assert a claim but merely participates in the investigation is also protected.

The Court unanimously agreed that such an employee was protected. Justice Souter wrote that “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in a form of employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.” The Court recognized, therefore, that just by confirming that sexual harassment occurred, the employee was opposing it.

While this decision has long been the rule in New York, both the district and appellate courts in Crawford had reached the opposite conclusion. We are pleased to see that the U.S. Supreme Court is ensuring that employees who in any way oppose discrimination in the workplace are protected against workplace retaliation.

The New York Times recently reported that Nascar has settled a multi-million dollar race discrimination and sexual harassment suit with a former employee. Among the egregious conduct claimed by Mauricia Grant, was that two employees exposed themselves to her and that she was called “Nappy Headed Mo” and “Queen Sheba” by other Nascar employees.

The conduct to which Ms. Grant was subjected is not uncommon. In many workplaces, employment discrimination is something that has not been eradicated. In fact, discrimination in the workplace is showing no signs of slowing down. EEOC statistics from recent years demonstrate this fact. The increase in claims filed for both employment discrimination and workplace retaliation claims confirm our long-standing belief that employment discrimination is a disease that must be eliminated from the workplace.

According to a recent article in The New York Times, sexual harassment exists in one of New York City’s most prominent restaurants. The article describes the sexual harassment of Martha Nyakin Gatkouth, an émigré from Ethiopia, while she worked as the hostess at Tavern on the Green, one of the most famous restaurants in New York City.

“It was a daily thing,” she states. “I felt scared, terrified, embarrassed, sad.” After having her case dropped by the Manhattan District Attorney, Gatkouth went to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which opened an investigation. Although other employees admitted to being sexually harassed, none were willing to come forward for fear of workplace retaliation.

The New York Law Journal recently reported that a prominent New York law firm has filed a countersuit against a former Partner. The firm accuses the former Partner, who had originally filed a defamation suit against the firm, of “extremely inappropriate personal conduct,” claiming he had a “pattern of [making] suggestive comments, sexual innuendo, sexual propositions, sexually-oriented teasing, gender-specific jokes and obscene gestures” to other employees.