A corrections officer alleged repeated sexual harassment by her supervisor. Lower courts had dismissed her claims, finding the State had exercised due care. In Aguas v. State, 220 N.J. 494 (2015), the Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing that an employer’s implementation and enforcement of anti-harassment policies is central to evaluating negligence.
Two former employees of the defendant were subjected to repeated instances of sexual harassment by the clinic’s patients. The employees alleged that they complained to the defendant about the conduct, but he failed to take any corrective action. They filed suit in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas alleging sexual harassment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that Ohio law did not recognize such a claim based on the conduct of non-employees. In Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, 129 Ohio App.
The plaintiff-appellants are three female dining services department employees. They sued Oberlin College, the defendant, alleging that they suffered various acts of sexual harassment at the hands of the executive chef of the private contractor, Bon Appetit, that operated the dining facilities.
The Plaintiff worked as a cashier at King Palace Chinese Restaurant, which was operated by King of the King Group Limited (“Defendant”). The Plaintiff alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Leung, an employee of the Defendant, who made a sexual remark to the Plaintiff and also touched the Plaintiff’s chest. Immediately after the incident, the Plaintiff reported it to her direct supervisor, who promised to follow up on the incident, but did not do so.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a sales manager. Another sales manager in her office sexually harassed her verbally and physically. He repeatedly made sexually explicit comments towards her and grabbed her buttocks on one occasion. The plaintiff sued in the Hamilton County Circuit Court, alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”).
In this case, the petitioner obtained a restraining order against her coworker who had constantly harassed her, and repeatedly made sexual advances towards her. The coworker violated the restraining order and the petitioner complained to her employer to take measures to stop the harassment. Despite her complaints, the coworker was not terminated, suspended, or reprimanded for his sexual harassment.
Female employees brought allegations of assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention of employees. The Florida Supreme Court considered whether the workers’ compensation statute provided the exclusive remedy for a claim based on sexual harassment in the workplace. The Court found that applying the exclusivity rule of workers’ compensation to preclude all tort liability would abrogate the overwhelming public policy interest in outlawing and eliminating sexual discrimination in the workplace.
The plaintiff sued the defendant in Civil Labor Court for damages suffered because of sexual harassment in the workplace. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant for 13 years, always received good performance reviews, and was promoted. One of the company’s directors continuously harassed her in the workplace for over two years even though the plaintiff rejected his propositions. Over the course of those two years, the director sent several inappropriate text messages and emails to the plaintiff, to which she never responded.
While working at Laidlaw, the plaintiff-employee and her five children experienced ongoing domestic violence at the hands of her husband. She requested time off to remove herself and her children from the abusive situation. The time off was initially denied, then she was subsequently provided paid time off for 15 days. During this time off, she received police, legal, and advocacy assistance. Shortly after returning to work, the employer demoted her, and then terminated her employment, stating that this was due to falsification of payroll records.
In DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., a female employee sued her employer and supervisor for sex discrimination in violation of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act and the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act. In deciding the case, the court set out a three-step approach for determining liability.
