The petitioner, a male employer, sought review of a final order of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, which found that the employer had created an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment based on respondent’s gender, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.030(1), which provides, “(1) [i]t is an unlawful employment practice: (B) [f]or an employer, because of an individual's . . . sex . . .
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.
The study is an in-depth analysis of 190 records of cantonal conciliation hearings and judgments under the Federal Gender Equality Act, 1996 (the “Act”) over the period of 2004 to 2015 by authors Karine Lempen (Law Professor, University of Geneva) and Aner Voloder (Lawyer, Office for Gender Equality of the Municipality of Zurich). Among the major findings and conclusions reached in the study are the following:
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”).
The plaintiff was the manager of the Tennessee Department of Corrections' Murfreesboro probation office. He was fired after an anonymous letter was sent to the department alleging that the office was rife with sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment. An administrative law judge reviewed the plaintiff’s termination and found it to be warranted.
A woman brought suit against her former employer for retaliation and sexual harassment based on claims that (among other things), her supervisor was constantly talking about his penis including graphic descriptions of its size, and his sexual prowess, history, successes, and aspirations. Blizzard did not allege that her supervisor’s comments were directed to her. Instead, she alleged that his comments were pervasive and that the female employees who were receptive to his “management style” received favors and preferences that Blizzard did not.
A few weeks after College-Town hired the employee, Rizzi, her direct supervisor began engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct. He made repeated sexually suggestive comments, touched her back on one occasion, and at another time placed his hand over a slit in her dress while commenting on her clothing. During a performance discussion requested by Rizzi, the supervisor stated that she performed well and added a sexual remark about her body. On another occasion, he used an explicit sexual term to refer to her.
In this case, the appellant, Ms. Frieler, sued the respondent for violating § 363A.03(43) and § 363A.08(2) of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), “based on a hostile working environment due to sexual harassment by a supervisor.” Ms. Frieler worked part-time and was interested in a full-time position in the shipping department. She expressed her interest and was referred to Ed Janiak, the supervisor of that department. Ms.
Gavin worked as the personal assistant to Rogers, the president of Rogers Technical Services, Inc. (RTSI). A few days into her employment, Gavin discovered that the conversations between her and Rogers always had a sexual overtone, if not outright about sex. One day, when Gavin entered Rogers’ home office in the morning, Rogers appeared to be wearing nothing but a pair of boxer shorts. Gavin immediately left and never returned to work again.
Three employees of the Kenton County Clerk’s office brought claims of sexual harassment in violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act against the Chief Deputy. The Chief Deputy had made several inappropriate comments to each employee over the course of their employment.
